15/10/01
23/09/02
DIATRIBE
OF A FANATIC
EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS DEMAND EXTRAORDINARY EXPLANATIONS
The attack on New York is a mere
philosophical discussion.
١ • A lesson in faith
٢ •
Petty
Mr Revel
٣ •
In
the meantime, the screwist is puzzled
٤ •
Two
hilarious adverts
٥ •
Summary
٦ •
A
strategist from Attac
٧ •
Irony aside, this is why even the Chinese understand
٨ •
One can understand a poor man dreaming of becoming a billionaire
٩ •
The first amendment of the American constitution is an admirable thing
ی •
Americans live in the smallest country there is
١ی •
Much
to everyone's amazement, bin Laden declared this world evil
٢ی •
So
I was saying
٣ی •
Moral
of the story
٤ی •
I
am indebted to bin Laden
٥ی •
Summary,
again
٦ی •
Conclusion
٧ی •
Notes
A LESSON IN REALITY
A LESSON IN MEANING
Utilitarianism is a form of nihilism
Money-grubbing is a form of nihilism
The fanatical Arabs who bombed New York necessarily had serious
(and most of all powerful) motives.
Bombing New York is neither done casually, nor for entertainment
or the sake of doing harm.
You just need to take a look at a photograph of Kuwait City
to understand the wrath of an Arab.
It makes you feel like bombing.
That's the result of two centuries of money-grubbing.
That's why Balzac was a monarchist and Stendahl an aristocrat
even though America already had the two Chambers.
I have now made up my mind. The proposition « the economy
exists » is nonsense (reference to a discussion going on on my website :
Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). It is nonsense to speak of the
economy as it is constantly done in the box and in the newspapers; and it is
nonsense with an ulterior motive. Ask yourself who benefits from the crime. It
is nonsense to assert, as does the complacent bourgeois Revel, that people live
to eat, though they do occasionally eat and most of them even occasionally do
not. It is sheer nihilism. Utilitarianism is the denial of all faith. Utilitarianism
is a form of nihilism. It is thus hardly surprising that it worships the
economy, i.e. nothing, no thing according to the etymology. Even animals
don't live that way. Fanatical Arabs live for their faith and prove it with
their death, even if they indulge in the occasional beer before committing
suicide (and generously offering many biers). They are a denial of utilitarianism,
a denial of nihilism. They prove that, in this world of nihilism and married
queers, some men are still capable of dying for their faith. That is what
potlatch is. That is finally what the most straightforward surrealistic deed
is. That is the return of Dada, it is Vaché's suicide to the power of twelve
and a half (for the number) and Rigaut's (for the precision). Besides it is
diminishing it to label it as surrealistic and it is insulting it to attribute
to it artists' pretension and self-centredness. It is an act of faith
directed at Manchesterian rationality, which is the complete absence of
rationality and meaning, i.e. sheer nihilism. What can be more simple
and obvious than fervent believers wanting to annihilate bourgeois nihilism?
This nihilism attracts faith like the conductor attracts lightning. As always
one must distinguish the act from its intentions, goals and phraseology. In
this world people's acts always go beyond their intentions. Whatever the goals
pursued by bin Laden, this act goes beyond these goals and his rhetoric. It is
a surreal act insofar as it proves the complete unreality of the Manchesterian
world which can collapse like a house of cards. Just the way we say
« smoke that, it's the good stuff », the Arabs said in their brutal fashion
« smoke that, it's the real stuff. » It is a lesson in reality. In
the entire history of philosophy, such a lesson in reality, such a lesson in
meaning, such a lesson in anti-nihilism was never taught. Far from a lesson in
darkness, it is a lesson in the unthinkable : people are still capable of
dying for their faith while nihilists, as can be expected, risk their life over
nothing: they go bungee-jumping. It is a clear lesson: that's enough
waffling, enough futility, enough Nobel Prizes, enough scooters, enough citizen
deeds, enough married queers
— queers of Labiche will finally be able to cuckold
each other, like everyone else ! Can you imagine the three hundred Theban
hoplites of the holy battalion married with each other? Bouvard marries
Pécuchet. With the rise of crime, will we have
to get policemen to marry each other? —
enough international bitch's day, enough Homais and Hommasse. Madame
Bovary gets her revenge. Such a world, with its beaming Messiers, must perish.
This time has come for enchantment. It is philosophy hammered in with a rock
and a hard place. In the United States too, there are people who suffer from
bourgeois nihilism, there are people who think. They will know what to make of
that lesson. Not all of the United States is roller skating and bungee-jumping.
Bush's worst enemies are within the United States (besides, that is the opinion
of the famous anti-Semitic revisionist Chomsky)
— evidence for it was New York's firemen refusal of
the politically correct statue that was to be erected in their honour. They
asked for history to be respected and refused its forgery by political
correctness, i.e. puritan hypocrisy : three whites hoisting the flag were
on the picture the sculptor drew inspiration from, so three whites should have
been on the statue whereas the artist had taken the liberty of putting
one black, one Latino and one white. The jury is still out on this. (le Figaro,
January 31) —
and he will not be warned by his secret services since these dirty brats
had rather have fun in Washington with their groovy game consoles to murder
three Afghan farmers from twenty thousand kilometres away.(Le Figaro,
February 12). « Life is short, play more », good old Bill
Microsoft ! Henceforth the life of any man over six feet is at risk throughout
the world. It is extremely urgent to ban the production and sale of Play
Stations. It inevitably reminds of the assassination of Alcibiades who, coming
out of his torched house, naked and armed with a mere dagger, was yet so
dreaded that his assassins dared not confront him and killed him from afar,
with arrows and javelins. Only faith is real. Only meaning is real. Only the
meaningful is real, only reality is meaningful. In this totally meaningless
Manchesterian world (all the meaning has taken refuge in money and only money
is real) words are also meaningless. We hear blah blah all day long on the
radio. That is why the Arabs had to let the aviation fuel do the talking (they
know about fuel and oil as much as Bush the oilman does. After the Pétroleuses,
we have the Pétroleurs. At least the latter didn't miss the Pantheon.)
and that is why American intelligence failed to take bin Laden's perfectly
explicit words into account. Blah blah, as usual, the chatterboxes thought.
Denying the meaning leads to denying life. Manchester* was back, more handsome
than ever. Manchester is not a man. Still Gottfried Wilhelm Bush said it :
Manchester is the best possible world and everything is for the best. It is not
only the proposition: « the economy exists » that is nonsense, it is
the world of Manchester (laissez-faire, if I catch I'll screw you, call on your
butcher's selfishness, and of course « Pompidou des sous »
(« give us money, Pompidou »)) that is nonsense, i.e., a meaningless
world, which everyone painfully feels every day. Only reality is meaningful,
and only the meaningful is real. A meaningless world is a world deprived of
reality as everyone can experience in their life. But the malice of Manchester
has found a worthy opponent. Since the fall of the famous Berlin wall, since
queers were getting married, Manchesterians had never had it so good. Monkey
Minc was waving his four little hands. Did they think it would last forever?
No. Bin Laden and the nineteen believers were on the lookout, bin Laden, one of
them, bin Laden, one of their condottieri, bin Laden the graduate, bin Laden
the entrepreneur, bin Laden the billionaire, bin Laden who gambles on the stock
market the day before the attacks he finances. There is always someone more
Manchesterian than you. What happened was bound to happen and will happen
again. Malice begets malice. There is always someone more malicious than you.
Bin Laden has punished this crime of nonsense, this crime of nihilism.. Bin
Laden has hit New Manchester. Bin Laden resents the infidel (the faithless) New
Manchester and its towers stuffed with Youpis®. (Young Urban
Professionals, the Anglo-Saxon « Yuppies », let's speak French, dash
it ! We are in Céline's country.) Queers have faith in wedding. Youpis®
trust no one. Youpis® only have faith in money. They have faith in
the Writings... on Wall Street. Contrary to the citizen cattle which only
thinks of its little self and of the rights of its little self
— what is improperly called individualism but is
actually sheer nihilism. Greek individualism produced Clisthenes, Pericles,
Alicibiades and even Brasidas, i.e. individuals, not herds of conformists.
Never was the so-called individual supposedly individualist so free to obey,
never was the so-called individual so free to submit, never was the so-called
individual so free to conform, never was he so free to choose between
submission and... submission. The master is at his balcony. He throws his
tarboosh onto the yard. The slaves protest. It's against human rights. —
contrary to queers who get married, the individual bin Laden (as the
humanists of the police put it) only cares about universal matters, he is not
concerned with his own existence, and thus not with others' existence. Unlike
bourgeois nihilists he believes in God, i.e. in humanity . He does not
despair of humanity. He has faith in it, in an admittedly brutal fashion but
not more brutal, and most of all without deceitfulness or proxy, than the
brutality of the United States convicted in the International Court in The Hague
of illegal use of force in Nicaragua, just like in hundred other places where
they instigated people to act on their behalf (some people! Real proconsuls and
praetors devastating their provinces, hordes of Verrès) and were never
convicted (on this issue refer to the well-known anti-Semitic negationist Noam
Chomsky, 9-11.) The proxy terrorism perpetrated by the United States, the only
hyperterrorism at all, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless
ravages and atrocities. Some money-grubbers indeed
[ « The round face of the grubman peered upon me now. » Bartleby,
Melville. In french : marchand de soupe. Note of the author ].
The tables are turned, aren't they?
*. Manchesterianism, free trade movement in the
first half of the nineteenth century. Advocates of this movement created the
Anti Corn Law League, located in Manchester, its leading spokesmen were Cobden
and Bright. The Law was repealed in 1846, following Ricardo's theory (An
Essay on the Influence of a low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock,
1815 ; Essai sur l'influence du bas prix du blé sur les profits du
capital, 1817). For profits to grow, wages must fall; those depend on the
price of the staple products of workers and their family. This means the price
of staple products, including corn, need to fall. Thank you Edouard Leclerc, a
bleeding heart pretending to defend consumers. « merci patron, merci
patron » (« Thank you boss, thank you boss »), the Charlots
sang. The different laws identified by Ricardo are altogether something else
than Engel's stupid and ridiculous law put forward by the deceitful idiot
(reference to a discussion going on on my website : Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). The free trade era began under
favourable auspices: within a few years one and a half million Irish people
starved to death. Two and a half went in exile. Perhaps some of their
descendants were in the towers bombed by bin Laden. Repealing the Corn Law was inter
alia meant to eradicate poverty. Yeah right. That is laissez-faire at
works. London did nothing about it, at least that meant fewer of those annoying
poor people to put up with. (Having said that, free trade was not responsible
for this massacre, it was the English domination which brought about the
dispossession of Catholics, single farming of potato for those dirty poor
people, and years of potato blight epidemic. Oh, Lord! What's six thousand
vanished Youpis® compared to that ?) Until today the free trade
era has continued almost uninterrupted apart from brief protectionist spells,
the longest of which was the result of the threat of so-called Soviets. It is
now in terminal phase, i.e. in the phase of free circulation of capitals. I
obviously agree with Marx on this. The sooner it is completed, thanks to Monkey
Minc's judicious advice, the better as it will give us the opportunity to see
if free trade delivers on its fabulous promises. Alas, the so-called citizens
of Attac see to it that it takes a few more centuries (The economy at the
service of the people ! What a nice slogan that reminds of the one on
the front porch of Portuguese banks in 1975: The banks at the service of the
people. That's all well and good. Crooks and fools.) Like Proudhon, when it
comes to capitalism, they want to have their cake and eat it. And they are
volunteers while American think-tankers are handsomely paid. They are like
those Maoist leftists who found Russia and China very hospitable until they heard
of the camps in those countries ; they needed that so-called globalisation
to see the true colours of capitalism, once hidden by the cold war. Back then,
Manchester had to keep its nose clean and try to look good because of
competition! Those were the days, back in general De Gaulle's time. But now we
are back in the forties, the 1840s, so nothing new. Free trade is neither
freedom nor democracy, it is simply the freedom of trade. Owing to the threat
of the so-called Soviets, it has always been in bed with the worst reactionary
regimes in the last fifty years, which has eventually backfired on them. Bin
Laden's attack can therefore be regarded as a scar from the cold war since the
CIA put him in the saddle in the context of that war. And so, this much dreaded,
much expected, but still totally surprising attack has eventually come true.
That's the way it is with those things that look immutable. One day they come
to an end. That's the way it is with apparently improbable, even unthinkable
things. One day, they come true. There is always someone more reactionary than
you, the skyline's the limit. That'll teach them. Best regards from Dr Mossadeq
— 1953, operation Ajax(1), Dr Mossadeq was illegally ousted
and jailed by the Shah at the instigation of the CIA. « So this is how
we will get rid of the madman Mossadeq in Iran » (he wanted to
nationalise oil) John Foster Dulles declared (how good he was). In 2001,
it backfires with the madman bin Laden (he wanted to bomb New York).
« Jesus Christ is free trade ; free trade is Jesus Christ! » (Dr Bowring, quoted by Marx in his Speech). And Muhammad
is the collapse of the Free Trade Center! —
And screw Roquefort merchants. Good old Marx, such impressive thinking,
everything is put so well in few words. Free trade, free competition for
traders (and today completely free circulation of capitals) and on the other
hand free prostitution for the wage-earning slaves. Only trade and prostitution
(which is a form of trade) are free in commercial democracy. Discours sur le libre-échange(2) (1848 in Brussels) Speech on the question
of free trade. And of course, free trade for everyone but the United
States which intend to remain the only protectionist country in the world.
That takes the biscuit: today, with the completely free circulation of
capitals, the world is solely run by capital holders, whom Marx despised so much,
no longer by industrialists, whom Marx respected. Why should such a world of
inflating capital survive ? Keynes was right capital holders should be
euthanised.
Cobden, Richard (1804-1865) : English statesman.
Economist, whose defeat of rural landowners ensured the victory of free trade
ideas.
Bright J. (1811-1889) : English politician,
leader of the Manchesterian or free trade party.
Unlike God's existence the existence of beliefs is no metaphysical
question. Therefore it is not a matter for philosophers but for the Pentagon.
If the proposition « The economy does not exist » is metaphysical, so
is the proposition « The economy exists. » If the proposition
« God exists » is metaphysical the proposition « God does not
exist » is just as metaphysical; otherwise if the former could be refuted
the latter would be proven and the other way round. The existence of religion
is not a metaphysical but a practical question. Beliefs are practical forces.
The belief in the existence of God is a practical force; it proves it by
attacking Wall Street. It does not prove that God exists but that the belief
exists as a practical force. It proves it is capable of changing the face of
the world. It is reductionism that is attacked at Wall Street by the power of
belief. Reductionism is a form of nihilism. Leibniz had said it: the world
cannot be explained by mechanism and : neither movement nor figures can
explain perception. When Marx tries to explain the world he describes a
mechanism, and that is where he is wrong. The question of God's existence is a
metaphysical question. The question of the belief in God's existence is a
practical question, extremely practical. Let me take speak plainly, just as one
cannot criticise religion while believing in God's existence, one cannot
criticise economics while believing in the existence of the economy. It simply
depends on the postulate. All of this is meaningful, extremely clear. In other
words, you cannot aspire to watch the henhouse if you are a fox. And yet, that
is what the idiot from Polytechnique Lipietz once pretended when he asked for
funds to develop a non-profit sector. It is indeed tantamount to asking a fox
to watch the henhouse (you might as well ask a Corsican). It is just as smart
as Professor Bourdieu's blunder: in 1981, when speaking of the French
government's policy towards Poland in revolt, he asserted he had entrusted that
government with powers. That is the kind of talk you hear from wage-earning
cattle which regards itself as a citizen as it thinks there is such thing as
people's sovereignty, which could be removed from people and should therefore
be protected and developed. The cattle is free to stall, and that is its only
freedom! The dictator (in the Roman meaning: the Senate gives the fox full
powers to restore order in the henhouse, caveant consules, to avoid any
damage to the henhouse!) Bush is in a poor position to criticise terrorism
since the state he heads was convicted for the same charge by the International
Court in The Hague in 1986. The fox has found a shrewder fox. A vulgar and
gloating but hypocritical fox is facing a shrewd and hidden but direct fox.
Things are getting rough in the henhouse.
Faith : from latin fides,
« trust » :
Fidem magnam habere alicui
Alicui summam omnium rerum fidem habere
La Bofetada del Moro
Dieu encule Hobbes(3) God screws Hobbes
This judgmental world is being judged
Catholics no longer call God « God » but « the Spirit »
but it does not mean Catholics have stopped believing in God (reference to a
discussion going on on my website : Réponse à la chienlit gauchiste (answer to leftist havoc)). Far from it, it is precisely
because, today, God's existence goes without saying to them (and to atheists
God's non-existence goes without saying) that the question of his
existence has become secondary, has lost of its virulence (like a strain of
Bacillus anthracis processed for use as a vaccine) and it is no longer
necessary to refer to it. The question of God's existence has become
secondary, not God's existence, which is no longer questioned. This is a
pacified religion, an ecumenical religion while Puritanism and Islam have
remained combat religions (as in combat gases). Until recently bombing was the
privilege of puritans. Things have changed so much. There is always someone
with more bombardiers and they bomb at very low altitude with surgical bombs
packed with smartness. In this case it is interesting to notice that God's
existence is no longer questioned at all but constantly referred to. An Afghan
film maker has pointed out that Bush and bin Laden share the same philosophy,
in short : « You are either with us or against us. » The
non-believer is as much of a believer as the believer. The difference is: for
the non-believer, believing is a private matter (though his speech and actions
are inspired by the spirit of Puritanism) while for the believer believing is a
matter for the state. Bin Laden and his colleagues can make use of all their
qualities of statesmen for they have the necessary tool, a state vector
— I suppose Osama of Arabia intends first and foremost
to free his country, not only of Americans but also of their local proconsuls,
this is dictated by his religion. I suppose he did not need his religion to
dictate, his patriotism was enough (another religion). Although Saddam Hussein
is a non-believer he is still an Arab. Bin Laden's anger at the United States seems
to have begun when they attacked Iraq. So he is firstly an Arab —
For now, (didn't the ugly albinos queer Warhol predict everyone would be
infamous for fifteen minutes? New York was doomed anyway just for hosting such
a scumbag. Stockhausen was right) that force is the second power in the world,
i.e. the power which managed to attack the first power on its own territory,
without any aircraft carrier but with a few billion dollars and the help of
God, for the first time since 1812. Even if God does not exist, invoking his
name can be a great help. God does not exist and still he can act. He really is
almighty, he does not need to exist to act. Faith not only moves mountains, it
crushes them. In fact, saying that God exists is blasphemy, existence is not
worthy of Him. Existence is mundane. The Catholic religion does not survive the
end of any lie. The belief has not ended, neither has religion, it is the
question, the philosophy which have ended. The question of God's existence is
not a religious but a philosophical matter. Catholicism survives philosophy.
Then the lie is religion itself, Catholicism itself, not the belief. Saying
Catholicism survives the lie is tantamount to saying Catholicism survives
Catholicism. It is a lie that states « God exists » but the
proposition « God exists » is no lie. A proposition is either right,
wrong or meaningless. The proposition « ether exists » was never a
lie. The lie of science is reductionism when it oversteps the bounds of its
realm, producing a lie comparable to that of the religion. In this context the
lie of religion is smaller than the lie of science ; it is proven today as
the meaning of the world is still debated, more than an idea of heaven,
religion is first and foremost an idea of the world
— similarly, real soviet despotism was less worse
(less more not good in Novlangue, strong signal. Bin Laden's sent you a strong
signal, arseholes.) than so-called commercial democracy
because in that form of despotism democracy was always a question and never a
so-called answer : in Russia there was no pretence of democracy and, thus,
no ideology of democracy. Nobody believed the government but some people
believe Bush. Ideology is like the wine drunk by the wine grower. It's plonk
but he does not notice it because he drinks it every day. —
At least the spirit is allowed in religion. Believing in God is
not a lie but using that belief to say slaves must accept their fate down here
is one. Similarly, believing in the existence of the economy is not a lie, but
using that belief to say slavery no longer exists and free trade is immutable
is one.
Petty Mr Revel (another believer in progress) puts forward in Le Point, October
12: « Islamic terrorism in general stems from a fixed religious idea
and not from the analysis of the true causes of poverty. It can lead to no
improvement whatsoever of the plight of less advanced societies "
— what does he mean, « less
advanced » ? What a complacent bourgeois. Less advanced societies are
in fact the ruins of destroyed societies, (those societies lived in
« material » poverty but in relational wealth, their poverty was
convivial, it was no destitution, particularly not the moral destitution we
witness today according to the Iranian Ranema (unsure about the spelling) who
will publish a book on this in a few months at Fayard. In a world where money
is the true community and the only community at all, as Marx so rightly said,
there can no longer be any other community, there is total separation, what
idiots call individualism : just as slavery is freedom, total separation
is individualism) we all know who destroyed them, they no longer await
destruction so they are advanced in this respect.-
That sums up the whole case against the morons of Attac and Politis
(they think they are citizens ! Ridiculous theoretical citizens) who put
down terrorism against America to growing poverty spread by capitalism as a
result of the resumption of the expansion of free trade. He very easily
dismisses this theory with hard figures.
— besides, who cares if incomes have doubled or risen
tenfold if e.g. all subsistence farming has disappeared not to mention culture,
replaced by income-demanding screwism. The supposed production of wealth is in
fact the production of scarcity. Not only God is a result. So is scarcity. But
the complacent bourgeois Revel does not care as long as they have food on the
table, as long as they have ten dollars a day instead of eight or three. Didn't
they use to eat? Well, they used to have no need for dollars at all. —
The only poverty spread by capitalism is its own, it abounds in it, it
overflows with it, it is screwism : screwism is the denial of trust, even
worse, the banishment of trust. Arab terrorists are
not asking for bread but for meaning. Besides they are not asking for it, they
have plenty, they export it, they make home deliveries. They have what screwism
lacks. They have trust. Screwism is all about mistrust, i.e. nihilism, the
denial of trust. This terrorism does not seek that less advanced countries also
have their roller skates and roller skaters, it is meant to condemn the
despicable spiritual poverty of capitalism, its despicable impiety, its
despicable nihilism, and its no less despicable claim to make them benefit
from it. Benefit ! This terrorism intends to judge. To judge the
banishment of trust. It is a slap from the Moor. Arabia not only exports oil,
it also exports synthetic faith, reconstructed from ancient and diverse
elements. In order to do this, this faith must be devoid of all local
characteristics (Roy), that is to say a globally acceptable faith, a world
faith! It is surprising but logical that the faith
standing worldwide in the way of the global triumph of Manchesterianism is a synthetic
faith, made of archaic elements. Only the abstraction of this archaism can hold
its own against the commercial abstraction. Allah is the leading global trade
mark, far ahead of « Just screw it » Nike. World vs. world. Only a
world can fight against a world. You, stupid complacent bourgeois, what is at
stake is, indeed, the fight against poverty. It is not relieving the plight of
so-called less advanced societies. What is at stake is the world's lot. The
scandal in this appalling world is not the existence of poor and rich people
but the fact that rich people are spiritually poor and poorer than poor people
in this respect. The scandal in this world is that it is faithless,
meaningless, devoid of any reality, i.e. nihilism come true, the scandal
is not that there are poor people, which is a mere consequence of that
nihilism. This spiritual poverty offends Allah (I am not Allah, yet I am
offended. How could he not be?) God worshippers actually worship humanity
without knowing it. Screwism is a sin against humanity. According to Feuerbach
and Marx, Allah is a projection of humanity, he is thus acting in self-defence.
He strikes Bouvard and Pécuchet, as well as Homais, who have faith in progress.
He strikes the human resource. It strikes cattle which thinks it is a citizen
and, precisely for this reason, is just cattle. Since they started to earn
wages slaves became the owners of their body (habeas corpus, right?
Lautréamont wrote to his banker Darras : « on September 11, when my
body will appear before the porch of your bank »... indeed) they think
they are free while they have to stoop to a degrading activity which was never
inflicted on antique slaves or medieval serfs : they have to prostitute
themselves (how could antique slaves have done such thing? They did not own
their body). They are only free to prostitute themselves. Today's slaves enjoy
the most restricted freedom, the freedom they need to prostitute themselves,
which is theoretically impossible to slaves. It is the famous principle of
minimal freedom. This minimal freedom is crucial to slaves' masters who
consequently strive to remove anything that stand in its way. So-called
individuals who are supposedly increasingly freer are just increasingly freer
to prostitute themselves and free-trade advocates see to it that this freedom
grows uninterrupted, unchecked, unrestrained and unlimited. Nature abhors
Lipovetsky. Since the areas of love, trust, family and religion have by and
large been destroyed by the dollar — only Arabia is spared (there are four
thousand Sa'ud princes, what a family!) — so-called individuals have no
alternative to prostitution. They have neither money nor family to support them
and all trust has gone to the dollar so no one trusts them and they have to
prostitute themselves (if you have some time read that cynical scum Malthus*
who, at least, is frank) and are, of course, enjoined to conform while being
« innovative », double bind. Innovation my arse. Bin
Laden, that's an innovator. In France pimps have reduced whores' working time
to thirty-five hours, but that is still prostitution. There can be no
prostitution without pimps. The slogan of the Lettristes « Never work »
is generally misinterpreted. It does not mean « Always be idle »
or « Do nothing » (it is every whore's dream to retire to the
French Riviera with her pimp, doing nothing) but never prostitute yourself,
don't be on the game, it is bad for life. Instead, move yourself, act. If you
cannot do it, then join the Legion, voluntarily renounce your freedom, serve
voluntarily but don't be on the game. The Greeks accomplished two miracles:
building their towns in the countryside and obeying freely. This is what the
world is all about. How can we build towns in the countryside and how can we
obey freely? This world is all about freedom for some and prostitution for the
others. The nineteen believers exemplify free obedience. « Never work »
means obey freely, not never obey. Freedom requires obedience but the converse
is not true. Freedom to work is merely freedom to prostitute oneself. That very
well explains why pimps are highly interested in it. In Kirivina no one was
idle and yet no one ever worked. Magic turns gardening into an exciting
activity, not to mention sailing. This is what magic is good for, which is
beyond an English Utilitarian's understanding. Magic is trust, magic is faith.
Magic is here to give a meaning, not to bring the rain. Besides magic is
timidly peeping out amongst the cattle handlers of the human resource. I will
not cry over the obliteration of six thousand Youpis® (get to the
towers, Youpis® ! — French writer Céline wrote before second
world war : « Aux fours les Youpins. » Voyer write today : « Aux tours les
Youpis. » Times are a'changing. NDLR) Those people, who only trust money, have more or less made this world
as it is, with their militant, proselyte and vigilant submission (they do
everything they can to take you with them in their misery, those are
volunteering propagandists, they are the worst ones, no one can do anything
against them, apart from the exterminating archangel bin Laden). So they have
only added to my misery. I will not cry over them. Those birds of ill omen have
been wiped out by birds of real happiness, a new concept on television, like in
Rêve d'1 jour®, make your wildest dream come true
— « with unlimited funding, no financial limit
to the fulfilled dream, huge logistics (indeed, those of American Airlines
and United Airlines brought together) as the man decorated with the swastika of
honour and other awards he has truly deserved was saying in le Figaro,
November 30, page 32: he boasts to have conceived his show « the
day after the 9-11 attacks », what a plagiarist. « After real
TV, we simply wanted to bring some real happiness ." Well,
he has done just that, and quite well, too. Le Figaro warns us: the
show works (or does not) « with candidates applying for their dream to
come true but with the secret help of their relatives and thanks to an enormous
budget. « It » shakes (to put it mildly) the
nitty-gritty of anonymous people by relying entirely on the surprise effect (to
put it mildly) and the fulfilment of the wildest of fantasies (to put it
mildly). » That is very well said. However, M.-E. Nabe points out in A
glimmer of hope: « Producing, directing and distributing Apocalypse
Now was far more expensive than imagining and carrying out the destruction
of World Trade Center and the Pentagon! » Reality is always stronger
than fiction which is poor plagiarism.-
It is nobody's fault, everybody is innocent, everybody is nice.
Cheese ! But M.-E. Nabe remarks: « It is criminal to
live like a fool. Nobody is innocent. " Living like a fool is a crime
against humanity
— people in the towers were therefore criminals!
People who call on their butcher's selfishness cannot be innocent. People who
placed their trust in the dollar cannot be innocent. People who deny trust
cannot be innocent. Civilian, therefore innocent. Civilian, certainly,
innocent, certainly not. In religion wars there are neither civilians nor
soldiers but faithful and unfaithful people. Those people are unfaithful. They
have denied their humanity. Farmers in Laos who were revoltingly bombarded by
the Americans, with bombies of united colors, were innocent and still
are. They still do not roller skate which can be complicated anyway when you
have one leg or both or even your life missing. —
Jesus asked: « What have you done with your talent? » What
have you done with your humanity, now buried under tons of wreckage, mean man?
It is an aggravating circumstance to be proud of it and to shout it from the
rooftops. Pride, fools and proud of it. Bin Laden has therefore brought
some real happiness with a terrible coup de grâce (a saving grace
of course). And the fact is I am madly happy, to speak like Stendahl, to see
that in such a world of money-grubbing nihilism there are still some people who
believe in something and prove it, people who deny nihilism and most
importantly, people who can express it while so many others have to bury their
denial deep down in their heart. What an inspiration! There can be another way.
Thank you BL without an H, great production. Accomplished directing.
High-flying accomplishment. He who flies high is the true believer. « The
battlefield was superb ! » In the meantime several logs were
burning at the same time in the fireplace. Cheers ! Champagne of
Virtues! (in fact Vertus ; Vertus is a little village in la
Côte des blancs, near Avize, Cramant and Mesnil-sur-Ogier, villages
which product permier cru, 100% classified grapes. In French Vertus
means Virtues. NDLR) I drink to the tons of hypocritical fitting
messages, to the gallons of crocodile tears shed by people who don't care about
it because they are too busy screwing each other to give a fuck (they keep it
to fuck themselves!). They are the only people allowed to voice an opinion.
Small wonder. I drink to Stockhausen. I drink to that Glimmer of hope.
This world of nothingness which was supposedly immutable is not so. It can be
destroyed by faith, assisted by aviation. Only faith could bring it to an end.
One could hope that faith will not be the Wahhabi's ruthless faith
(muwahhidūn, the « Unitarians », an extremely abstract
puritan and post-concomitantly Jansenistic movement, which, from the depths of
the eighteenth century was the only one able and predestined to fight against
the dominant Puritanism of the twenty first century!) As of today such a
ruthless faith was the only one capable of taking on such a ruthless world, a
faithless world, a world devoid of trust, a world of systemic mistrust,
systemic deception, systemic nihilism. Lautréamont would have been
speechless : as beautiful as... as beautiful as... (as beautiful as truth,
as beautiful as hope, as beautiful as trust). This event is probably the only
one that has not been fabricated throughout the world (M.-E. Nabe).
A real attack with one real and single meaning (and an extremely simple
one : « no ». These polyglot Arabs had practised before by
saying « niet », with the CIA's help.), perpetrated, as people say,
by real terrorists who sacrifice their real life thanks to the support of their
real faith. « Overwhelming, impeccable, incorruptible. With Bin Laden
in charge, instead of that sad Cohn-Bendit, we are safe... We know it cannot
end up in the European Parliament ! » (M.-E. Nabe).
The force is with them. Bin
Laden is not the sort of man who apologises to a minister or an publisher, he
is not the sort of man who challenges Berlusconi's police. Eventually, this
global coup, i.e. this denial of nihilism has been carried out by bin
Laden, a Muslim, an Arab, a Wahhabi (muwahhid). All this truth is fairly
comforting in the midst of this hogwash, this pretended self-satisfaction, this
indecency, this complacency, these compromises. « A fanatical terrorist
Muslim may not be in the best position to decide on behalf of all of us what is
and what is not bearable but it turns out that there is such a sensible
insanity to his act that he becomes the messenger who tells the tale of the emptiness
of our contemporary existence. » (M.-E. Nabe) Any trust
whatsoever is banished from that existence. Homo homini lupus : Man
is a wolf to Man
— note that the
wolf is also a wolf to the wolf. It should be glad. It would be terrible for
the wolf if it was a Man to the wolf. Contrary to what the Englishman
Hobbes claims, Man is the only mammal which attacks its own species and
therefore is aware of it, what Hegel calls the negative, evil. Man denies Man
but thus knows his kind, acknowledges the existence of his kind while wolves
only recognise individuals. This is what expresses the myth of the original
sin, the myth of the tree of knowledge. Any savage people calls itself
« the humans " in its language. This is what Bush does: Americans are
the humans. No, bin Laden answers, the humans are those who worship one god,
not two as Bush does. Mankind is a general thing, the kind of wolves is
not. The kind of wolves is only a general idea. The kind of wolves does
not exist until that general thing exists, the kind of all animals. And so
animals are given a mind, for their sins most of the time. They did not all
succeed as well as cats or horses (without Man, horses would be extinct). Same
can be said about the economy. The economy is not a general thing but only a
general idea, an arbitrary section in mankind which is the only general thing
with sub-categories; it is an arbitrary section like the one, albeit judicious,
drawn by an architect in the elevation of a house. Take a close look at all the
houses you like, you will never see any section, except after a NATO
bombardment in Serbia. In architecture it is also called an angle... an angle
arbitrarily taken. Capito? The notorious anti-Semitic negationist
and very controversial linguist Noam Chomsky wittily points out (and yet he
does not look like the sort of person that laughs every day) that some
Americans say : « New York looked like Beirut » but forget to
add : « Beirut also looked like Beirut ". Capito ? —
What Hobbes described as a state of nature is a result. The banishment
of trust and the extension of the realm of struggle are one of the
circles of hell (struggle as Houellebecq meant it in Whatever. Struggle
meaning screwism. Similarly, some feel shocked when Houellebecq says he
disapproves of individual freedom. But Houellebecq only disapproves of the
freedom to screw, which is incidentally an illusory freedom : the
screwist, raised to screw, born to screw, always wants to screw but he never
does, he always gets screwed). President Bush intends to extend the desertion
of trust and profiteering nihilism to the whole world. Let me repeat it, Allah
is in self-defence and he is not the only one. The trust in Allah is not only
one being chased, so is any form of trust other than the trust in the dollar. The
whole world trusts the dollar. Let it die of it. Once again, Houellebecq was
right: all of humanism has found shelter with the police. Surrealists had
already said that the only free man on the street was the cop. Trust is its own
end but it can also be a terrifying means. This time you have seen the female
shark and the eagle in the sky, you bastards. When will the next dream come
true, when do you have the next real misery? This so-called
hyperterrorism is in fact a terrorism of university graduates who refused to
turn into Youpis®. Blitzterrorismus (M.-E. Nabe). This terrorism is sighted,
its victims are blind. Like Rimbaud it sees the abjectness of this world
— Rimbaud walks into a café in the Latin Quarter
« full of hideous lorgnettes and beards », Claudel. In
his presumed will Atta notes : « I resist life ». (« Te
quiero, te adoro, mi vida », Dos gardenias, Ibrahim
Ferrer.). Mohammed Atta, not poet and martyr like saint Genet, but criminal and
saint. — ;
its victims are blind because they want to ignore they are slaves, that
is why they are just cattle, a human resource, they do not even enjoy slaves'
dignity, they campaign for the normal continuation of slavery
« without the slightest idea what a decent life could be » (Necessary
illusions, Noam Chomsky, well-known anti-Semitic negationist). In this
world living normally is living like a slave without even wanting to know about
it. Normal precisely means not wanting to know about it. The survivors
will be worse, they will campaign for the normal preservation and the normal
defence of their normal slavery so that they are free to go on
prostituting themselves like before, what they call the normal
life. The brilliant flying terrorists had had every opportunity to watch the
most modern of bourgeois stupidity, with rose Cadillacs and palace Belle Époque
on the Promenade des Anglais, when they studied as kids, since they were
destined to become Youpis®. As Flaubert said, that's where education
leads the sons of the desert. Like Flaubert, bin Laden is also a bourgeois,
even though he is a much richer one! So he knows about bourgeois nihilism,
about money-grubbers. He will also write his masterpiece which reminds of Salammbo
and the Temptation of Saint Anthony. The anchorite and billionaire
has a dream of a gigantic city. He is simple at heart. Mathô is hunted down in
the mountains. The mercenaries are abandoned to the lions in the desert plains.
Today Emma Bovary has got herself a pair of balls (she already had them since
she was Flaubert), and he is flying a plane. He is looking straight at his
target, that is to say his death, no matter what the sycophant La Rochefoucauld
said about it. It is a global calmly excited Bovarism that stands in the way of
triumphant bourgeois nihilism and commits suicide (not with the white powder
this time). It disturbs the commercial happiness. « This terrorism can
lead to no improvement of the plight of societies " (Revel. It's not
meant to, you moron. The complacent bourgeois cannot imagine for a second that
it can be about denouncing the impiety of this world, about denouncing the
permanent sin against the spirit of the disgraceful self-satisfied
bourgeoisie.) that are less advanced in terms of roller skates. It can only
improve the plight of societies advanced in terms of bourgeois stupidity, where
Revel, Attac and Politis are at large with their messianism for aphids and
their citizen deeds (they want to invite themselves to the masters' table and
get beaten. Serves them right). Their only motto is: more normal shit
for everybody, more normal shit and normal citizenship for aphids
(aren't whores citizens like any others ?) and less and less trust and
meaning. Despite their apparent opposition they are agreed on this point
because it is the point they are arguing about: what is the best way to make
commercial happiness and the freedom of prostitution last for a few more
centuries (Houellebecq's novel Platform takes a particular meaning in
this context : he declares himself in favour of the freedom of
prostitution. But it has been in force for two centuries already!) How to
restore households' confidence (including, from now on, queer households)? That
is this world's ideal. I think the word normal is Houellebecq's favourite
word, the novelist of normal suffering. This terrorism is a lesson in
faith, a lesson on the meaning of the world (ASSIMIL method), a dreadful attack
on nihilism. Of course, this faith is antiquated, so is the world it aspires
to. That is the only faith remaining. The Trinidadian (neither English nor
Indian) novelist Naipaul says (Al-Ahram Weekly On-line
6 — 12 août 1998) : « ... the
flaw that ran through Islamic history: to the political issues it raised it
offered no political or practical solution... It offered only the faith... This
political Islam was rage, anarchy. » That is precisely it. Islam
only has faith whereas the others have mobile phones (telephone seems to be of
high importance to Mr Naipaul who blames Muslims for knowing how to use it —
like planes, as you have noticed — without having invented it). It is therefore
a paragon of faith since it is the only one that has only faith, quite a
despicable paragon indeed but also a very appropriate one, i.e. a paragon that
is good enough to face off the faithless world of roller skaters, married
queers and mobile phones. The world of Revels and Bushes has carefully
destroyed and hindered any other possible faith and hopes to continue that
way : it is precisely its nihilism. Since Islam only has faith it is well
and truly the fight of faith versus mobile-phone nihilism. There is only so
much one can give and Islam has only faith to offer. The Salafists' ruthless
faith is therefore the ideal predator of this nihilism, and this predator
itself has no other predator to fear since it is the only one of its kind. This
eagle of faith makes light of B52s, alas, the unfortunate Afghans cannot do
that. (By the way, who is really obscurantist? Those antiquated people or those
genetic engineers driven only by the lure of profit? Those antiquated people or
those idiots at techno parades ? That said, Bin Laden may be a modern
nationalist statesman seeking the total independence of the great Arabia, a
super Arab Mossadeq. Faith is his strategic weapon. We all know statesmen never
get in a state of uncertainty. Besides he is arguably succeeding at it. The
marriage of money USA-Arabia is suffering tensions and, against all
appearances, Arabia still supports bin Laden.) And so, the world had not put
anything away when the rainy day came. What faith could it oppose to the
ancient faith? What spirit could it oppose to religion? It only has security
services and patronising lectures (huge stocks of patronising lectures and
informers and watchdogs of all sorts). This is an unfair fight (supercops and
superspies of the FBI and the CIA cannot read Arabic after ten years of war
against Iraq). Uneducated puritans are looking scornfully at a millennial
society. They claim to be judging. They are being judged. There is no immune
system against religion : they are infected by the AIDS-virus of
profiteering nihilism. Contrary to what Vaneigem imagined, terrorists do not
come out of the metro, they come out of the middle age, the age of faith, the
age of cathedrals, the age of plague and cholera. They come out of oil wells.
Speaking of well, the colour out of space is green. The world is of
average size.
* « In the early nineteenth century, the Anglican pastor Malthus,
great prophet of the English bourgeoisie had proclaimed with a comforting
brutality :
"Whoever is born in an already overcrowded society has — if
his family cannot provide him with the few means of existence he is entitled to
expect from it and if society has no need for his work — no right to the
slightest amount of food and he really has nothing to do in this world. At
nature's grand banquet, no table is set for him. Nature puts him out to pasture
and swiftly carries out its own command."
Today's official society, with the hypocrisy of its « social
reforms », disapproves of such brutal honesty. But in fact the unemployed
proletarian is eventually « put out to pasture » by society if it has
« no need for his work », this happens one way or another, fast or
slowly, evidence for it is the rising figures of diseases, infant mortality and
crimes against property during the great crises." Rosa Luxembourg quoting
Malthus Rosa Luxembourg citant Malthus.(4)
In the meantime, the screwist
is puzzled. How can there be so much hatred, how can anyone
hate screwism so much ? How can anyone hate peaceful roller skaters and
scooter riders? I have no idea how it is possible but that is a fact. I heard
on the radio some time ago the president of the society of Parisian roller
skaters threaten a representative of the police chief to break up their society
if the police did not allow roller skaters to go wherever they like, en
masse, in thousands, outside the previously agreed specific lanes. He
proudly added (Pride as usual) : « roller skating is freedom ».
A typical screwist. Such a lofty mind. Such a high opinion of freedom.
Nietzsche identifies the following as one of the causes of nihilism, for want
of a superior species (Napoleons are in short supply) : « The
inferior species — "herd", "mass",
"society" — unlearns modesty and swells its needs so much so
as to turning them into cosmic and metaphysical values. The whole existence is
thus vulgarised. » (European nihilism, Nice, 1886) Indeed, now
that roller skating has become freedom. Can there be a more cosmic and
metaphysical value than freedom and a more vulgar need than roller skating?
Screwism, as its name says it, is the freedom to screw. Screw each other.
Houellebecq is right : compared to this, the police are humanist
(Houellebecq admittedly does not mean it this way : he opposes the
police's humanism to the Islamic commandos' barbarism). I also understand the
sort of freedom Houellebecq says he hates. But against all appearances this
freedom, which was terribly likely to plague us for a thousand years, is not
immutable. The past is catching up on it, this part of the past that it has not
managed to destroy completely yet (you cannot think of everything. Nobody's
perfect.) Just the way Cuvier was able to reconstruct a fossil mammal from one
shoulder blade, Bin Laden can reconstruct this shitty society from one roller
skater or one married queer and come to the obvious conclusion. Such a world
must disappear.
Two hilarious adverts. Air France : « Making the sky the most beautiful place on
Earth » (it did not fall on deaf ears) ; Siemens telephones:
you can see from below an airliner flying over the Manhattan towers :
« In the world of business, all that's needed is a single weapon to
render all others obsolete. ", in small print : « From
the USA to Asia, you are feared. " with a little comment in the bottom
right : « Be inspired » (In Rome, fanatical meant inspired.
Those idiots thus wrote unwittingly: be fanatical. Wahey! This poster is
actually a coded message like the ones the CIA ascribed to Bin Laden's videos.
It says: in the world of business, this faithless world, faith is the weapon
that renders all others obsolete. It says: from Afghanistan you will terrorise
America. It says: be fanatical.) Yes, fashion is whimsical. Dallas, your
universe is without pity. You have called on your butcher's selfishness
and now you eat mad cow meat. Serves you right. And now die. However some
butchers I have met know about honour.
Summary for those who may have been lost on the way. The gist is very
simple : it is not the fight of the poor against the rich but the fight of
good against evil, that is to say the fight of faith against nihilism
— at last! Not before time. Bush knows it very well.
Slaves always pay for their master's sins. The fanatical Arabs stressed this in
some statement in response to criticism of their hitting innocents :
Americans claim to be the democracy par excellence, the people is supposed to
be sovereign over there (while amongst the Wahhabi
— muwahhidūn — God is), it has elected and entrusted its leaders
and must therefore suffer the consequences of its leaders' harmful deeds. In a
democracy, the people is sovereign and takes responsibility and is the only one
doing so, otherwise this democracy would not be a democracy. The fanatical
Arabs, still as ironic, take up the money-grubbers on their democratic
propaganda and pretend to treat American slaves as Athenians. An Athenian would
have had no quarrel with such an attack. Far from it he would have demanded the
head of the strategists whose carelessness had allowed it to happen. Athenians
did demand and obtain it, completely illegally, for much less than that. In
Athens slaves were the only innocents in Athenian politics. Either the victims
in the towers are slaves and therefore innocents, or they are citizens,
therefore responsible and therefore strategic targets. In Guernica, the Germans
invented terror strategic bombardments which took civilians as strategic
targets. The Anglo-Saxons invented strategic bombardments which cannot spare
civilians, but do not mind the occasional retaliatory terror bombardments on
civilians like in Dresden, Le Havre or Hiroshima. Americans thought they were
at peace with Allah, they were wrong. Bin Laden, with an implacable logic,
insists again: « Every American is our enemy, directly or indirectly,
whether he carries a gun or pays taxes. » Indeed, who finances the weapon
industry if not the sovereign people with its taxes? Happy taxpayers. Every
rich Athenian had to arm at least a trireme. —
It is not the fight of the poor against the rich but the fight of
meaning against commercial nihilism, it is the attack of faith on a faithless
world, it is a fight between those who honour trust and those who have denied
trust, it is a fight between those who have placed their trust in God (some of
whom are billionaires) and those who placed their faith in the dollar (the
majority of whom is poor), it is the fight between trust and bourgeois
screwism, which is systemic mistrust, systemic deception, the fight between
selflessness and profit, it is the fight between the fanatics about God and the
fanatics about money, it is the fight of an antiquated faith against
state-of-the-art screwism (which has been around for two centuries: read The
lesser bourgeoisie by Balzac) because screwism has wiped out any sort of
faith
— but faith in money, of course. Lucien Chardon keeps
saying to himself in Lost illusions : « Money, money ».
A fiduciary currency, if words still mean anything at all, is a currency
relying on faith, on trust. Trust has migrated to the currency but the greatest
mistrust prevails between men. The bad trust drives out the good one. This is
what alienation is. Alienation is alienation of trust. —
Screwism has wiped out any other sort of faith which explains Hitler's
easy success in his time, but also why fanatical Muslim organisations can
recruit so easily : they give a meaning to life, to the world, to a
completely meaningless world, a completely nihilistic world, a world of
money-grubbers, a world of Homais, a world of money-grubbers, of WASPs. What do
you expect, it is irresistible. What antibodies could the miserable Republic of
Weimar oppose to the man who stated : « You will be like gods »,
while its first President, Ebert, had crushed the Spartacist faith ? What
could they oppose but Ebert's thrilling agenda : socialism is prostituting
oneself a lot? Faith is not necessarily religion or trust in God. If God is,
according to Marx and Feuerbach the projection in heaven of man's generic
forces, then faith must be, even if it ignores it (that is precisely the
question), faith in man. Marx confused generic forces with productive forces,
that is his sin. He is a victim of Jean-Baptise Say (1767-1832) (whom Marx
rightfully despised whereas he respected Quesnay, Smith et Ricardo). According
to Say man had been a producer-consumer from time immemorial. It is always
unexpected blows that catch you off guard. To Marx, Krupp explains Vulcan. Any
religion, before being a conception of heaven, is a conception of the world.
The screwist has no conception at all. It is day-to-day money-grubbing with
only one precept : if I catch you I'll screw you. The screwist is the
infidel (faithless), the nihilist. He does not trust anyone, only money. Faith
has alienated itself (it has migrated) into money, if words, the word faith inter
alia, still mean anything at all. Moses had a good reason for being mad
when going down the mountain. He had understood the danger in the blink of an
eye. The screwist goes scooting and roller skating. Skating, scooting,
Orginet, Porginet, Aldous Huxley got it right
— and even better than I thought : at Jack
Welch's, the Gracious Electrician, Edison's distant successor at the helms of
GE, the « most admired » CEO in the filthy world of screwism, there
are alphas, betas and gammas, the point being to identify
the ten per cent of gammas to be eliminated and the twenty per cent of alphas
to be promoted. Ain't that Christian? Holy scum. Jack Welch is a corporate
builder and the means to his end is cattle selection. Le Figaro, December
17 2001. This Bin Laden is a wishful thinker, still too soft for this
world. —
The faith vacuum created by money-grubbers and their nihilism leaves the
door open to any faith, no matter what it may be provided it is there. As
Houellebecq would say, it's the most stupid but it's the only one. Who is to
blame? You have the faith you deserve. If this world were not such a
prostitute, Wahhabi (muwahhidūn) would have nothing to say, nothing to do.
It is the faith vacuum in the world of screwism that sparks off the Wahhabi
faith and its dormant cells. Faith abhors a vacuum. Let us not forget that the
lightning conductor was invented in the United States : the faith vacuum
is a lightning rod for the wrath of faith. In Rome fanatical could also
describe a tree struck by lightning! This judgmental world is actually being
judged. Mané,
técel, pharès.
Puritanism is a religion but it is the denial of all
faith, it is money-grubbers' faith. The puritan mistrusts God !
(originally, in Latin, faith meant trust.) He does not fear God
since his fate is sealed but he busies himself just in case because you can tell
the chosen one by his business even though all busy people are not chosen ones,
on the other hand he is certain those who do not busy themselves are not chosen
ones. (Weber, The spirit of capitalism). It is the precautionary
principle, dear to the puritan schoolteacher Jospin who did not always follow
it since he married a lovely catholic fuck who was blonde, an air stewardess,
did not even have a PhD in philosophy but a mere BA in history and geography
and to top it all wore red gingham knickers, suspender belts and
underskirts! And this is true, you just can't make up that sort of things. This
is how it started: one day, at the student canteen Châtelet, Jospin was sitting
opposite a mouth-watering student who had forgotten to take a knife at the
counter. Like a true gentleman, he offered his. Ha ! Freud. And what were
the watchdogs, the fascists' hunters, doing all that time? They did not see
anything coming, they did not denounce anybody. They live in the desert of
bragging tarts.
A strategist from Attac, Susan George, le Figaro,
January 31, remarks: « It is clear that bin Laden or his followers
could not care less about the poor in their society », which
deserves full praise. Congratulations, these Arabs are therefore neither
leftists nor social democrats. She adds: « It is also clear that
terrorism feeds on poverty and exclusion ", you have to
understand this volunteer, her business is the poor in her society and
even more those in other societies. Bin Laden is a big bourgeois and his nineteen
followers are small westernised bourgeois, just like Susan George. How could
poverty and exclusion, in the sense meant by Susan George, fuel the terrorism
of such men, who are neither poor nor excluded, in Susan George's meaning, and
do not care about the plight of the poor, still as meant by Susan George ?
Besides, if we take the CIA's word for it, this is what bin Laden himself says
about it, speaking of his nineteen faithful : « With their acts in
New York and Washington, these young men have conveyed speeches that surpass
all other speeches spoken throughout the world. These speeches are understood
both by Arabs and non-Arabs and even by the Chinese." (le Figaro,
December 14 2001) There you go, even the Chinese understand! Don't you?
Those doctors, town planners and engineers are neither leftists nor social
democrats, i.e. they are no professional and ostentatious volunteers who make a
living of their compassion in Porto Alegre or elsewhere but who says these men,
bin Laden in particular, are not deeply grieved by the deprivation of their
people? If bin Laden and his followers care about the poor in their society
they simply do not care the way Susan George does, if only because, to them,
spiritual poverty and richness are more important than anything else. True:
they hardly care about the defence of French gastronomy. Their prime objective
is to snatch their country, including the poor living in that country, from the
clutches of the American proconsuls. It is their own way of taking care of the
poor. In this world of money-grubbing, those who claim to fight money-grubbing
and its implacable logic are just money-grubbers themselves, you just
need to take a look at that fat scum Bové, champion of the struggle of
Roquefort against McDonald's. Money-grubbing, indeed, but organic
money-grubbing for all, how about that? The Host pure God. These
anti-money-grubbing money-grubbers just want to make money-grubbing liveable
and, in the process, replace money-grubbers. Susan requires from leading
money-grubbers to let her have it her way. Money-grubbing is a form of
humanism. For fair money-grubbing. There was a time when situationists claimed
to fight in the name of spirit, but they all ended up money-grubbers. In such a world, spirit is left in the hands of fanatical
Arabs, of inspired Arabs. At the moment they are the only ones fighting in the
name of spirit. It is spirit which struck New York. Who is to blame? The cause
of spirit is in the hands of assassins, i.e. in good hands because
money-grubbing has assassinated spirit for two centuries. Money-grubbing has
suffocated Madame Bovary. Madame Bovary takes her revenge. She takes the veil,
the Muslim veil. Lightning flashes from the potentially strong one to the
potentially weak one. Where in such a world was there a potential for spirit
that could have prevented this attack? Bush the money-grubber fights back with
tons of explosives and peanut butter (Polyphemus, blinded by fury, is really
struggling to nab Ulysses among all these Afghan sheepskins). Bin Laden, who is
not a head of state, was able to attack a world as a world ; Bush, who is
a head of state, can only attack, destroy or threaten a few states. He cannot
attack the world represented by Bin Laden and his nineteen believers, the world
of faith. No matter what he may do, he will never be able to. And he does not
need to, trade is taking care of it.
Irony
aside, this is why even the Chinese understand: the speeches are only conveyed, notified as a
bailiff does, they are not spoken because there is no need for it, their acts
finally speak for themselves : acts directed against a meaningless
world are intrinsically sensible, negation of a meaningless world is sensible
(which does not apply to propositions: the negation of a meaningless
proposition is necessarily a meaningless proposition). It is no longer about
cutting the throat of a few poor fellows in the Mitidja but to denounce a very
complacent world which intends to continue that way, a world which calls itself
free but is full of prostitutes and devoid of meaning, too busy doing
business. Those two towers were just two large brothels full of poor devils
forced to prostitute themselves every day. What an ideal, so much
meaning ! Lifelong prostitution. And finally, meaning comes out of a clear
blue sky. So anyone can understand in their own language those conveyed
speeches (by the way there are hundred thirty million Muslims in China). For
the first time in the history of terrorism a world as a world has been
attacked, and not specific targets (even then, with these specific targets, the
point was to attack a world but it did not show because the targets were
specific), anyone knows that, everybody has understood it and is either
delighted about it or deploring it. This is why I have also seen a glimmer of
hope : first of all is it possible to attack the world as a world and only
faith is capable of it. Moreover it is possible to endorse the cause of the
world and that cause is the cause of spirit. Capitalism was attacked where it
was not expecting it, on its nihilism, on its denial of faith; by those it was
not expecting, by fervent believers; and for a motive it did not and definitely
cannot conceive, its permanent crime against spirit. We are a long way from
Henry and Vaillant's bombs. There is a dialogue from world to world. The
attacking world harnesses the only weapon he has: meaning, the only cause for
which men are prepared to die, like Greek heroes. This is Bin Laden's tour
de force. Those conveyed speeches surpass all pronounced speeches throughout
the world because they were globally conveyed. And because they were conveyed
and not spoken they are impossible to forge. They are encoded and yet everyone
understands them very well. Bin Laden and his nineteen believers are the
bailiffs of the meaning, they deliver the meaning; but they are also its
paladins because they snatch it from the clutches of the nihilistic dragon
which, holding hand on heart, assures us it introduces an usually high degree
of morality in its foreign policy
— William Kristol, some Bush adviser). This makes your
blood run cold. Please, I beg you, no morality, anything but morality,
especially not to an unusually high degree while it is already so harmful in
small doses (I will know study the case Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who also wanted
an enduring and generous peace, which brought about Keynes's resignation
at the Peace Conference and World War II. To him, morality was not an empty
word, he sacrificed himself to death for it. He was not a man to squeal
indignantly, as Trotsky would say. But perhaps he should have been a sort of
Roosevelt, the man with the rifle, great white hunter, interventionist,
instigator of the international court in The Hague (!), capable of kicking the
arse of his allied and keeping their greed in check. The German government had
put its fate in his hands which was a high responsibility. Roosevelt was in
favour of going to war as soon as the conflict broke out, which would certainly
have sorted things out before irreparable damage was done. Alas, Lafayette had
to wait. —
We know where it takes us. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Meaning, we only want meaning, you brainless head. The United
States is savagely attacked. It is its turn, for a change, and even without
their twin towers of strength, they defend themselves as vigorously as ever.
All's fair in love and war. It is a millennial tradition. It seems to me things
are clear, they were absolutely predictable. You can stuff your crap theories
on a just war, two-faced bastards, dirty hypocrites (Lettre d'Amérique(5) (What we're fighting for) signed by sixty
American intellectuals, mostly professors, including that good old
« Fuck-you-Yama » Fukuyama), after the tons of explosives and peanut
butter we now have the tons of morality. Explosives, money-grubbing, morality,
that's the full monty. You have to give some credits to the sixty moralists:
they have learned their lesson: « what we do know suggests that their
grievances extend far beyond any one policy, or set of policies.... Clearly,
then, our attackers despise not just our government, but our overall society,
our entire way of living. » Later on, in their innocent hypocrisy (it
is the winegrower's plonk. They drink hypocrisy every day, they don't feel it
any more.), after praising American values very warmly
— don't be afraid, they do not talk about trade and
dough, the only real American values, but about beautiful moral values such as:
« Each person must always be treated as an end rather than used as a
means. », like at General Electric for instance or like in the
offices of the towering inferno before it was destroyed. Such quiet impudence.
There are over hundred thirty million prostitutes in the United States and
there are used as a means while they are on the game and even the rest of the
time, they are treated like fools. This is such daring puritan Tartufferie. —
they declare : « That's why anyone, in principle, can
become an American. » But that is precisely the problem. Real American
values are trade and dough and these values triumph throughout the world so
that everyone in this world is enjoined to become an American. But bin
Laden does not want to become an American. Those sixty moralists have not
understood as much! What is it going to take for them to understand this simple
fact? I suppose bin Laden reckons he is already enough of an American and
a billionaire as he is. He knows about trade and dough, he a connoisseur.
I suppose the nineteen believers also thought they were already enough of
Americans, enough was enough. Besides they have shown they preferred Allah's
paradise to the American paradise, without a shadow of a hesitation. Everything
proves those Arabs did everything they could to remain Arabian. Check Roy on
this, according to him, Arabs have been trying to remain Arabian for a hundred
years. Unlike the American moralising hypocrites (the sixty good people), Arabs
do not like to beat around the bush. The Moors beat the Bush. Bin Laden and his
nineteen believers don't care about the so-called American universal moral
truths and prove it by attacking the real de facto American values, trade and
dough, sources of infidelity and mistrust. They do not attack churches but the
temples of trade and dough. The sixty moralists are indignant : « the
killers of September 11 issued no particular demands; in this sense, at least,
the killing was done for its own sake. » Had they issued a particular
demand, as Americans do when they want to kill, which they happened repeatedly
in the last two centuries, one could not say the killing was done for its own
sake (case already dealt with by Pascal in Les provinciales). And the
sixty moralists point out that the leader of al Qaeda described the
"blessed strikes" of September 11 as blows against America, "the
head of world infidelity." So the sixty moralists note themselves (thank
you, morons) that bin Laden has no particular, pragmatic, political, moral, in
one word, American motivation but a general motivation, not only a general
motivation but also a general target. He does not strike America as such but as
the head of world infidelity. He does not strike America but the whole
world and he strikes it for its infidelity. Bin Laden's general motivation is
the infidelity of this world of infidelity and he strikes its head, or one of
its temples. I agree with the US State Department on this (Département d'Etat US(6) ): "By attacking the World
Trade Center, terrorists probably sought to attack a « symbol of
America ». They did not. What they attacked was an international trade
institution." This is absolutely correct except that Bin Laden, who
can read English very well and thus understands the meaning of the words World
Trade Center, says he attacks the head of world infidelity, i.e. the head
of the trade world, i.e. the trade world itself. Of course the sixty moralists
completely ignore that the universal value of faithfulness can have another
meaning than faithfulness to Allah and that a worshipper of Allah can however
be entitled to defend this universal value. Since no one defends this value in
the world of screwism (instead of fighting screwism the pathetic intellectual
merry-go-round is entirely devoted to fighting fascism and right-wing
extremism, as for queers, all they think about is getting married) an expert in
faithfulness, no matter how diabolical, has to take care of it.
Congratulations, serves you right! You should have thought of it before. According
to Roy (le Monde diplomatique, avril 2002), neo-fundamentalism
has turned Islam into a simple system of behavioural norms, a sort of
Islam-code in kit form, a world faith adaptable to all situations, from the
Afghan desert to the American colleges ; in this sense neo-fundamentalism
is as much a product as it an agent of modern deculturation. So as I said, it
has backfired. The desert of global fidelity has brought about its exact
opposite: the globalisation of the ferocious fidelity of the Arabian deserts.
You cannot argue bin Laden has destroyed all fidelity (fidelity is not
necessarily religion) in the world of screwism ! It is not Don Quixote
that has destroyed knighthood. « The imaginary umma of
neo-fundamentalists is quite concrete : it is the global world where
behaviours are uniformed along the dominant American model (McDonald's,
[Nike] and English) or along an imaginary dominated model (jellaba, beard
and... English). " So Allah can screw Nike. Of course the stupid text
by the sixty good people is published, in French, in Le Monde, the
newspaper of Combinani the American. The United States are indubitably in
self-defence and that was precisely what bin Laden (and perhaps Dr Strangelove
too) had in mind, so there is no point in the sixty good people's quibbling; if
the US had not been in self-defence it would have meant bin Laden had failed to
reach his goal, the meaning of his act would not have been perfectly and
clearly defined and the speech would not have been conveyed. Islamists invoke the
name of God to kill indiscriminately, puritans invoke the name of God to make
some dough, an action triggers a reaction, the joke has been going on for too
long. This is the result of the introduction of an usually high degree of
morality in the foreign policy, and, according to the famous anti-Semitic
negationist Chomsky, this foreign policy is defined by wars and deceitful proxy
wars. I am not blaming the US for being warriors but for being money-grubbers
and moralising money-grubbers on top of that, for being Buddenbrooks, i.e.
hypocrites and proselytes who dream of converting the whole world to
money-grubbing, to the denial of spirit, for being people who shamelessly
pretend to be friendly to all moderate Muslims all over the globe (let Allah
keep them from such friends). No, thank you. Money-grubbing is a form of
nihilism. To money-grubbing for all, the Wahhabi (muwahhidūn) answer with
fanaticism for all. Marx scoffed at Feuerbach who did not understand there is
no history of Christianity, instead the different forms Christianity has taken
have empirical and contingent causes, and the situation is the same here. The
world of money-grubbing did reactivate this implacable and inhuman faith, this
is Jurassic Park all over again. Let sleeping tyrannosaurs lie. The absolute
idiot Debray puts these words in the mouth of an American: « The
strength of Islam lies in its moral vigour, its shared fervour... We do not
have such morale [only morality ?] but we have means... »
Who needs an objective or a meaning when you have means? This dear Dr
Strangelove (I have seen this film three times at least) is as funny as ever!
If that is not nihilism I don't know what is. At least bin Laden does not want
to convert anyone to Islam. He has no intention of enthralling any non-Muslim
country. He demands with strength and determination that the holy lands of
Islam be evacuated by their occupiers, these holy lands where Islamism has
failed. It seems to me that his only slogan is straightforward and constant:
evacuation. Evacuation of Afghanistan, evacuation of Arabia, even evacuation of
Palestine. Roumis go home. In order to do this he has to attack a world as a
world, something that could never be achieved by states, neither by Japan, nor
by Germany, nor even by Russia, although it declared it was its goal and
threatened to follow it through seventy years long. The question of the world
is finally raised at the global level, not by Fukuyama and others of his ilk,
not by rebellious money-grubbers in Porto Alegre but by a fanatical Arab
who conveys: this is what I do with your morality, you hypocrites, it backfires
on you. Morality had gone overseas, like a virginity on a US Navy Seal's dick,
returns as the female shark. Allah screws Nike... There is a curious paradox:
apart from Afghanistan, which had no government and where it was supported by
the CIA, Islamism has failed in all the Muslim countries (Roy) as a result of
eradication or repression or has apparently succeeded but then turned into a
national and nationalist state (Iran) ; consequently, the Islamist project
(islamisation of modernity) has neither a meaning nor a future in those
countries but only in America, only in the country of commercial nihilism where
God is invoked to make money (Marx and Weber). It is the failure of Islamism in
its own world that left bin Laden with no other option but to take on the world
of nihilism, to approach the net as tennis players say. Why would he bother if
he had succeeded elsewhere ? The islamisation of modernity will therefore derive
from its annihilation. It makes sense, it is the only option available to an
Islamist after the failure of Islamism. This is an unexpected mishap for the
American dream. Bin Laden who failed (or political Islamism instead) in his
world succeeds in New York. It definitely proves that anyone can make it in New
York, anyone is given a chance in New York (like Paul who failed in Judae but
made it in Rome). Bin Laden was instrumental to the CIA as well as the CIA was
instrumental to bin Laden, no need for a conspiracy, American strategists are
directly responsible for the bombings in New York (the missile bin Laden is
cruising), they may benefit from it but that's another story. The stakes are
high. He who rots last laughs longest. And whether there is a conspiracy by Dr
Strangelove or not is irrelevant. When they make the burning faith of Salafists
the plausible culprit conspirators make themselves the enemies of this faith,
as money-grubbers. Guilty or not, manipulated or not, this faith remains
perfectly entitled to denounce radical money-grubbing nihilism. It goes
to show that whey you try too hard to prove something you end up proving the
exact opposite. Even if the whole thing is staged the play is good the actors
are brilliant, particularly bin Laden as bin Laden and Mohammed Atta as
Mohammed Atta. The amazing Peter Sellers plays the parts of the eighteen
remaining believers, of a CIA agent, of Mullah Omar, of the president of the
United States and finally of Dr Strangelove. What an artist! In any case the weapon
used remains faith and this weapon objects to utilitarianism. On several
occasions Olivier Roy compares bin Laden with Action Directe. But there a
significant difference in scale. The meaning was hardly perceptible in the acts
of Action Directe and was also coupled with absurd rhetoric while, in this
case, the meaning becomes perceptible in a global, wordless act. The two
collapsed towers are an ideogram meaning faith! Even the non-Chinese can read
it. And how could the Chinese, who had probably never heard of that group, have
understood anything about Action Directe? Today, there is no need for words
since the act is global. Anyway, for bin Laden and the nineteen believers there
is nothing to add because everything is written in the Koran. It exempts them
from elaborating absurd rhetoric and allows them to devote themselves to
significant acts which even the Chinese can understand. M.-E. Nabe had
already noticed it : the moderation in bin Laden's words is surprising,
the violence and scope of his acts are all the more remarkable. The famous
anti-Semitic anti-American negationist (but not queer and nazi, let's be
reasonable) Chomsky calls on people to take the trouble to hear these words.
Bin Laden speaks as a statesman, which Bush is incapable of doing, he can only
speak as a preacher. Hate, Love ! The world's gone crazy and that's
a good thing ; who is the layman, Bush or bin Laden?
One can
understand a poor man dreaming of becoming a billionaire. But bin Laden is already a billionaire. He nearly was a billionaire in
dollars when he was born and then he became one. He is therefore not driven by
the poor man's resentment. After the failure of political Islamism (Roy), what
else could he do, one against all, but a world guerrilla, with a felicitous
blend of archaism with modernity, of faith with aviation? From the USA to
Asia, you are feared. Be inspired. It is the first world guerrilla. Blitzguerrilla.
Guerrilla too is getting global! It is a long way from the Sierra
Maestra ! Bin Laden succeeds where Khrushchev and Castro failed. He has
struck America. Bin Laden's strength lies precisely in the fact that he is not
a head of state (M.-E. Nabe) even though he has the necessary skills for
it. He is just a guerrilla but a world guerrilla, and a billionaire on top of
it, which is by no means a flaw. So he is free as a bird. Bin
Laden may be the only free man in this world. The nineteen believers died as
free men while the people they assassinated died as slaves, i.e. as sinners
against humanity. So much for the innocents. The death of the nineteen
believers is meaningful, it is the good death of the Greeks. Their victims died
just the way they lived, in absurdity. By conveying the absurdity of their
death to a scared world their assassins prove the absurdity of their life. It
is precisely because he is not a head of state that bin Laden can be a world
guerrilla. Olivier Roy points out that the state of the Taliban is the only
state in history sacrificed by its head (Omar l'a tuer) to an international
cause as a result of his unfailing support to the global project of his guest.
The weakest will be strongest, so the Gospel approximately says. Bin Laden is a
condottiere who first fought on behalf of the United States and then continued
to fight for himself. Unlike condottieri of before he does not spare his troops
and those do not want to be spared . If only all the billionaires in the
world were like bin Laden. At least we have a billionaire who does not keep
grinning and shaking hands with his colleagues in front of the television
cameras after a supposedly superprofitable merger. He is such a magnificent
spendthrift. For the first time in the history of humanity, such a colossal
refusal, such a colossal faith, colossal planes, colossal towers, the attack on
a colossal country, the attack on the centre of a world by a handful of braves
come to the fore. It is the first global attack. The Knight of the Sad
Countenance finally tilts at a giant in his windmills, in his hot air mills, in
his hot air malls. This Quixote thinks he takes on infidels; he does take on
infidels; therefore nobody laughs! What Simone Weil said very nicely in 1940,
bin Laden says very meanly today.
Having said that, the first amendment of the American constitution premier amendement de la
constitution américaine(7) is an admirable thing, a
legacy of Voltaire (shady financier), which turned that country into a
revolutionary country. No Gayssot Act over there, no Gayssots either, they were
all disposed of by McCarthy. Gayssot, go home. If I knew how to write it in
Russian I would write it in Russian. It is not that country I dislike it is New
Manchester, it is screwism, it is Youpis®, it is married queers, it
is citizens deeds made by slaves thinking they are citizens, it is the
watchdogs, it is perfidious Albion which martyred Lord Byron and Alan Turing,
the Irish and even the English (spare the rod and spoil the child,
right ?) and now the Americans, it is Anglo-Saxon cant insulting the real
Grail, insulting Hope, in one word : the nihilism of money-grubbing, all
those things the sad monopoly of which America does not have, alas. But today
America is the land of choice of screwism, « the head of world
infidelity " (bin Laden). I am not delighted to see America and
Americans being struck, I am delighted to see the centre of global nihilism
being struck and to see the reasons for it : either for nihilism or for
infidelity, i.e. at last, for a fundamental reason and not for some political
or imperialistic reason. In those horrible hives, a swarm of innocents were
busy developing the nihilism of money-grubbing and its odious demands. A
strange idea of innocence! I see a glimmer of hope, not because Americans were
assassinated (let's face it, sects of assassins are an old Middle Eastern
tradition, Fidā iyyūn, those who sacrifice themselves,
1090-1256) but because the immutable centre of global nihilism was attacked by
faith, which is its negation. The main thing is that the immutable and
insolent centre of global nihilism was attacked in an unbelievable, extravagant
manner. This act is just as insane, from the viewpoint of the nihilist Homais,
as what it attacks, nihilism, and that is only fair. Such a crime can only be perpetrated
in a criminal world. Attacking New York is attacking the world. What I am
delighted about is not the fact that New York is under attack (what does it
matter?) but the fact that the world of commercial nihilism is under attack and
that it is attacked for its nihilism, that the world of infidelity is attacked
for its infidelity. Who will dare claim Hegel was right to say things progress
through their evil side, i.e. through evil. There is always someone with an
evil side worse than yours. Only evil can denounce evil. It is the considerable
evilness of the world of infidelity that has awoken some monster of fidelity
from the depths of the Arabian deserts. It is the negation of negation, i.e.
the negation of nihilism which is the negation of all trust. There is always
someone denying life more strongly than you are. Bin Laden, who are not yet in
heaven, free us from evil. Amen. In the 1966 edition of the dictionary Petit
Larousse, I can read under Islam : « Inspired by
Judaism and Christianity, Islam is strict monotheism. The cult is very simple.
Obligation to recite the profession of faith, five daily prayers preceded by
purificatory ablutions, pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime, giving alms,
holy war against the infidels threatening Muslim lands. » (The last
commandment has been removed from the 1998 edition. Too late!) Bin Laden merely
follows this very simple agenda implacably. What could Americans complain about
since they actively campaign for freedom of religion in the world and sharply
rebuke réprimandent vertement(8) European governments which take steps against
sects. They would like religion to remain a private thing so that commercial
nihilism, the banishment of trust, the banishment of altruism can quietly
develop in the world. From what I gathered from reading Roy, Islam is precisely
neither a state religion nor a private religion but a civil religion. State is
a foreign body to Islam. « In the Muslim world the civil society is a
society of law and it is actually the state that can seem particularist and
« fanatical ». ... The fundamentalism of ulema defines a
society of law; this means that the social sphere is regulated by objective
norms which are as independent from the arbitrary of the Prince as western
positive law may be (no more, no less). ... There no Islamic totalitarianism,
no reduction of the civil society to the political life even more so as in
Islam there is self-sufficiency of law and its interpreters without any
interference from the state. By definition, the return to sharia is neither
fascist nor totalitarian (which does not mean it is democratic). » Sharia
is law, just as well as bourgeois positive law is, it is no despotism. (Roy, l'Afghanistan,
Islam et modernité politique, Seuil, 1985). Religion,
along with the work of solidarity groups (açabiyya) is (or was, or would be...)
Muslims' civil society. Such a society of meaning and solidarity, whether it is
dream or reality,
— « The Muslim image of politics accepts and
even adamantly assumes that Islam exists sub specie æternitatis, timeless,
not criticisable. " (Roy, The failure of political
Islam); but the American image of politics adamantly assumes that
democracy and freedom are, according to Bush, immutable (actually I think he
more modestly said « enduring »), i.e. timeless, not criticisable,
for centuries to come; but we are only talking about a commercial democracy,
i.e. only a democracy for traders and where the only freedom is the freedom of
trade. It goes to show anybody can make a mistake! —
such a society of meaning and solidarity is poles apart from screwism,
which predominates in the commercial civil society. One must therefore
understand the fury and meanness of Arabs when screwism threatens their society
or their dreams of society. They are as furious and mean as the Americans when
their so-called democracy is under attack. For Muslims, religion plays the role
which trade plays for Americans. It regulates everyday life, whatever the political
regime, just as trade regulates Americans' everyday life
— Americans live in shopping malls (Chomsky), and
Muslims in mosques! Every man has his own temple. However, today, in the
richest Arab countries, many Muslims also live in air-conditioned shopping
malls. —
But these furious Arabs are well placed to perceive the appalling moral
misery, the poverty of life and the desert of trust in which western supposedly
sovereign individuals are engulfed. As I was saying earlier, they are sighted,
their victims are blind. They want none of this misery, of this poverty of
life. Like the billionaire bin Laden, they prefer to have a life of poverty but
a great richness of life and... death. The attempt by political Islamism to
islamise modernity is just another attempt, to no avail, to humanise an
inhumane society. The failure of this attempt leads to the mere denial of
modernity with the tools of modernity. Even though they were graduates the
nineteen believers were no different from the poor, graduates or not, living in
the whole world
— The United States is an occupied country itself, and
the most occupied country since everything is bigger over there. It will
probably be a very tall order for Americans to break free from this occupation
but, I agree with Marx on this, the liberation of all occupied territories in
the world can only derive from the liberation of Americans, i.e. the liberation
of the most occupied country. The destiny of the world hinges on America and
Americans. Neither the Arabs, no matter how fanatical they be, nor Allah, no
matter how mighty he may be (and definitely not the fat moron Bové. It is
already an extraordinary success that the fanatical Arabs were able to teach a
lesson to the lecturers, a lesson summed up by these words : non-believers,
which takes the biscuit for bigots like the puritans. The slaves of God reach
out for the slaves of trade... in death) will liberate all the occupied
countries in the world, Americans will, providing that they start by liberating
their own country from what occupies it and from those who occupy it. One last
effort, Americans — another effort, after so many already? Yeah, sorry — if you
want to live in a republic. For now the country terrorises its own inhabitants,
in the name of God, obviously. Same old Buddenbrooks! Terrorism begins at home.
It is quite possible that, thanks to Dr Strangelove, a Bostonian neo-fascism
has come into place in the USA for... thousand years. —
The only difference between them and the poor is that they could afford
to take revenge on them and that there was a generous patron (so this is how
bin Laden takes care of the poor, he allows them to live and die in dignity),
which enabled them to really pursue individual goals. They had a goal in their
life, a freely chosen goal, and they reached it, unlike so-called
individualists who are supposed to live in this world but are actually happy
gregariously doing as they are told with their tails between their legs. That
is why Islamism takes on trade and its symbols. Islamism is an answer to
screwism. There is always someone more violent than you. It is the rivalry of
two civil societies (both dream and reality at the same time) or, to put
it otherwise, two civil religions, with one worshipping God or at least
pretending to and the other worshipping money, effectively and without a shadow
of a doubt, whilst pretending to worship freedom and democracy. I particularly
like those who claim « our » world is disenchanted. But such a world
is Klingsor where girls-flowers abound, naked like peeled bananas. Every Muslim
is a citizen of Islam, really so in the civil religion and ideally so in the
community of believers, before being a so-called citizen of a state, i.e. a
merely theoretical and not practical citizen, therefore he is much more of a
citizen than the theoretical ones, the so-called citizens of the commercial
society where only the abstract man, the theoretical man is a citizen while the
concrete man is a Hobbesian screwist (Marx). The catholic religion, by
interfering with civil life and loans with interest, disturbed north European
traders who did everything they could to privatise religion so that the whole
civil sphere was free for trade; similarly trade disturbs the civil religious
life of Muslims, it disturbs the daily practice of their faith so much so that
Islamists do everything they can to put an end to this devastation. According
to political Islamism, establishing a Muslim state which would protect and
defend this civil religious life from the ill effects of trade would however
permit to develop the presumed positive sides of trade, i.e. technology and
science. At least that is what I gathered from Roy : Islamists « stress
they differ from the traditionalist fundamentalism of ulema, which is based on
the alliance with official powers in place. Islamists' agenda is no longer the
strictly legal programme of ulema but political and social changes. They want a
state, not just the implementation of the sharia because the sharia can only be
implemented in a really Islamic state... Any implementation of the sharia
paying no heed to the social and political context is mere hypocrisy. This
refusal of the strictly legal programme of ulema is based upon the will to
define a political doctrine of Islam that takes into account the modern society
with all its complexity...The sovereignty of God on men's society, which has
fallen back into the djahilliya (the time of ignorance) and has
forgotten it, must be restored. Once this is achieved the realm of law-making
and political decision-making will be minimal. Good Muslims just need to
deliberate among themselves for God's law to be recognised as such. » The
predominance of God's law, of God's sovereignty over man's arbitrary must be
restored (Généalogie de l'islamisme. Hachette, 1995). This looks very
odd to me. Obviously, such a thing was already been condemned one first
time by history and by Marx, this is the Christian state, religious in politics
and political in religion. It was also condemned a second time by history (i.e.
what did happen, as opposed to History, what was bound to happen.
The judgement of the world is what is going to happen) as a state intending to
replace trade to perform its task, which was the case in Russia when it was
called Soviet (but was not the case of nazis who were smart enough to leave
trade to traders with the striking success we know of — and who obviously
were fortunate enough to have an already well established albeit devastated
trade sector and competent Keynesian ministers at their disposal. — That
good old Mercedes SSK! No state can be an alternative to trade.) That project
was doomed to failure anyway. It was tantamount to wanting to combine the king
of Prussia's flaws with Stalin's. Even more simply, trade presupposes nihilism.
It is thus sheer insanity to want to associate faith to nihilism. It is like
wanting to mix oil and water. There can be only one. Marx would say, as in The
Jewish Question, that in this particular civil society (the one regulated
by ulema and not the one longed for by fundamentalists), the whole political
realm has not taken refuge in the state yet, which implicates that the man in
this particular civil society is not the « natural » man, i.e.
the selfish man of Hobbes and of Human Rights like the man in the bourgeois
civil society derived from the French Revolution (bourgeois coup). Men
in this particular civil society are (or were or would be...) true fraternal
brethren in religion since religion is their civil life, fraternity is not just
displayed on the ridiculous porches of the administrative buildings as is the
case in the bourgeois society. Obviously the Islamists' project, which is to
protect this society
— to restore it in fact as it is already destroyed, if
it ever existed at all, and the destruction goes back a long way. In the early
twentieth century Rosa Luxembourg already referred to world trade when she was
making fun of Professor Bücher. The Muslim Brothers were founded around 1928.
Today clear-sighted but backward people discover world trade and free trade and
swinging free trade proponents (a topic for Houellebecq). —
would, had it succeeded, have only ended up destroying this society as
certainly as trade without benefiting from either of them, as it boiled down to
turning a civil society (precisely where the uniqueness of this religion lies)
into a state religion. It is therefore a blessing that this project, having
failed, was left with no other choice than to take on trade directly, on its
own ground, because this project thus elevates itself to a superior level
— check what I already wrote on this in 1982 with
Pierre Brée: le Jugement de Dieu est commencé (The Judgement of God has begun). Today I would no longer
write that Arab states were Christian states as defined by Marx in The
Jewish Question, at the time I did not know of ulema's existence and role.
To give a brief summary, I wrote that, despite appearances, the critique of
religion had yet to be made. It is plain to see it when, today, it bombs New
York, it is the religion which does it, not the critique, alas. The critique of
religion must highlight the truth challenged by the religious lie, otherwise it
is no critique but pure deception and propaganda for the materialist and
utilitarian lie. People prefer to ignore the issue raised by religion. Covering
religion with opprobrium without highlighting the necessity expressed in it is
putting off the evil day (till it blows up in your face, and it has, indeed...)
Religion does not prove God's existence, it proves the vital need for a
meaning, a meaning that the current world completely lacks. If you try to get
rid of religion, it comes back right at you, riding its Arab horse. So long as
you are materialistic you will be bombed. Bombing New York is a mere
philosophical discussion. —
Islamism was already doomed and defeated before its attack on the world,
but the principle it defends is not, i.e. fraternity in faith which, with this
attack, rises to the global level by directly opposing to the world of
nihilism, the world of the last man, the world of protesting queers and
rebellious money-grubbers. Islamism was meant to raise the question of
political Islam, the question of the Islamisation of modernity but it actually
raised the question of the world. The prophet Jesus had said so : the last
will be the first. Roy does not understand bin Laden's act. Instead of
elevating Action Directe he diminishes bin Laden who he says has nothing to
offer. But, just the way Omar sacrifices his state to the cause of his
guest, his guest sacrifices his already lost cause on the global altar
— or more exactly the Islamists cause, and he is
probably right on this. Amongst other things they act globally, referring only
to the community of believers whereas Islamists, despite their proclamations,
have always had a national or even nationalist agenda. But above all they no
longer refer to politics which is why they became acceptable to the smart guys
of the CIA. But above all, was bin Laden ever a political Islamist, is he not
simply a Salafist fundamentalist with one and only slogan: US go home ?
Anyway, bin Laden and his followers stem from the failure of Islamism, there
would have been no place for them in a triumphant Islamism —
he had nothing left to lose so in a brilliant inspiration he offers it
to the global cause. It is a deed of generosity. It is a holocaust. It is a
lesson. By doing this he restores the value of his lost cause, much to the
chagrin of all well-meaning people. In fact, bin Laden offers a
demonstration : his cause is lost, it has proved to be incapable of
islamising modernity but the principle it defends, faith, is capable of bombing
New York! What other force in the world could do this? No materialist, no Manchesterian
could have predicted such thing : faith therefore becomes a world power,
completely freed from any political or nationalist plan, even from... religion.
Bin Laden has just closed the book on religion. Now it is only about
ideal, abstract, globalised faith. There is always someone more globalist than
you.. Religion finds itself reduced to its simplest expression, to a personal
relationship between God and the faithful, like for the American enemy. There
is always someone more puritan than you. Finally the only innocent in
this case seems to be bin Laden himself, innocent as in Perceval the innocent
fool. One has to be really foolish to bomb New York without any precise
political agenda apart to a simple reference to the community of the faithful and
without caring about the American retaliation which will be, of course,
ruthless. And still New York was bombed, which is the essential point. Bin
Laden offers to bomb New York and he does bomb New York, the head of
submission, conformism and impossibility. He proves that, contrary to the
allegations of the Manchesterian propaganda, what is supposedly impossible is
possible to the not submitted one. Thanks to aviation a handful of fanatical
neo-Muslims were able to convey the depth of their scorn for the brilliant
civilisation of Mr Bush, head of the world, and the American Combinani, head of
Le Monde, like those Japanese who committed suicide in front of their enemy's
door to convey their scorn to him. There is always someone more scornful
than you. Freedom is criminal above all. Roy is surprised that behind the
extreme violence of this act there is no political agenda, no project of
society and no claim. But bin Laden's cause is freed from such things, from
politics, nationalism, project of society. Bin Laden has reached the same point
as those workers in 1968 who went on strike and demanded... nothing. However
bin Laden clearly and briefly proclaims the motives of his act, which the
workers of 1968 were utterly incapable of : he attacks the world of infidels
for its infidelity. Isn't that clear enough by now? This is no assumption on
the intentions, goals, strategy and faith of bin Laden or his paymasters, if he
has any. How could I know any of it? The only thing I am positive about is the
faith of the nineteen believers since they have given hard evidence of it (a
bit too hard, don't you think ?), they have made a sacrifice too. Like St
Anthony they resist life. Besides, apart from the evidence for the existence of
this faith, I know nothing more. By sacrificing Islamism (literally so as, even
if it wanted to carry on, Islamism could not do it anymore, you know why. Bin
Laden is also a sort of Terminator. Perhaps it is one of his code names at the
CIA?) in this global adventure, bin Laden exposes to an amazed world (according
to Bush) the profound motives of Islamism : the hatred of money-grubbing,
the hatred of commercial nihilism denying faith and, far more simply, denying
any decent life. The cause is lost but the motives are exposed globally... Like
ancient Greeks and Romans celebrated by Robespierre, some Muslims die for their
homeland
— the religion of their fathers and no longer the land
of their fathers since they are Muslims scattered around the world, totally cut
off from their home society, from their family, from their host society,
westernised and individually re-islamised, still according to Roy. These uprooted
Arabs are the real inhabitants of the United States just as the Herodian Paul
was the real inhabitant of the Roman empire, even Nero had to admit it. It is
their own land which they bombed for its impiety. The world is their land, they
are the real citizens of the world. They have seen the world. They have judged
it. Veni, vidi, vici. —
a homeland which is also their faith, and they like their law. Americans
prefer money to the law
— apart from lawyers because to them, law is money.
And as I said: seven American families are suing the consort bin Laden,
asking for a billion dollars in damages and a fine of hundred billion dollars
on the noble pretext of stopping him from doing harm. There is really no limit
to the puritan hypocrisy. If I was not God, I would like to be a lawyer in
America. —
these Muslims do not. Money is an implacable tyrant above any law. Even
more, bourgeois laws are designed to facilitate the reign of money. Laws serve
money. The trust in money must be preserved at all cost.
« Americans
live in the smallest country there is: My
ghetto, my house, my car, my TV, my dog and my fridge (the dog in the
fridge ?). Everything is reduced to its simplest expression. A great
vacuum fills this vast space. And this vacuum must be hidden! » (M.-E. Nabe) It sounds like Groucho Marx. Having left
Europe, Americans quickly reached the moral destitution (which, having said
that, does not spare Europe). The physical destitution is no vice. The moral
destitution and nihilism are. And it is this vice that those money-grubbers
intend to force onto the whole world. And so they clashed with the inflexible
virtue of the paladin Quixote and his sword from Damascus son épée de Damas(9) : « When the sword fell on
America, the hypocrites looked up, pitying those killers who had played with
the blood, the honour and the holy lands of Islam " (bin Laden).
« We should perhaps ask ourselves why Islam is the most fervent
flashpoint of faith today. Had westerners (Franks) not been so iniquitous
perhaps Muslims would have been happy with a laid-back Islam. I will take it
further and in reverse: if faith so strong amongst Muslims it is because they
are the only ones left who believe in something. They call it Allah but it is
more like « Alley-oop! ». A way of saying no. A black-golded no that
shines in their green hearts. A no to the rotten mind and soul of men who have
more than enough money or cholesterol. "
(M.-E. Nabe). In other words bourgeois nihilism, claiming its
expansion is immutable, clashes with the spirit which always denies. Lord! (in
fact the Devil, the great black dog which did great circles around Dr Faustus.
NDLR)
Much to everyone's amazement,
bin Laden declared this world evil, in a
way nobody can ignore to the point that the head of global propaganda himself,
President Bush, thought he had to declare it good. For a short while the massive
and uninterrupted bombings of nihilistic propaganda (freedom is free trade,
free trade is freedom) was put on hold. This act, which had one precedent in
1968, delighted millions of people throughout the world and not only Muslims,
millions of people whose opinion is unlikely to be heard for they are not
allowed to voice it (According to the corpse Glucksmann, more than half — what
an optimist — of the world population is delighted and he is positive about
that!) Arabs spoke on their behalf. Like 1968 it came as a total surprise. A
heavenly surprise. Only Allah can do it: taking on the most powerful nation in
the world, barehanded, and with only one weapon, Alcibiades's dagger.
Alcibiades's dagger has rendered all other weapons obsolete.
— It is altogether something else than having a crap
on the moon or destroying a McDonald's (it would be fully indecent to compare
the dismantling of the McDonald's in Millau by Bové the moron with the attack
on the World Trade Center by nineteen believers, said Eddy Fougier, some
scientist, Le Figaro, January 31. That's exactly it.) This small crap was just
one giant crap for mankind, which was as much in the shit as ever. —
It is an act of global rebellion since nobody in the world can ignore
it. It is global as it is world famous. It is a gigantic NO. That is why it
delighted millions of people who suffer this world in complete isolation, in a
desert with no trust to be seen. There is always someone more spectacular than
you. It is a prelude. Nabe was asking : « What is the meaning of this
act ? » A certain form of alienation of trust, the trust in God,
denounces the desertion of all other forms of trust. With this act a certain
form of trust champions all forms of trust. Even though it believes and says it
fights for itself and for particular causes it fights for trust at large, it
bears the colours of trust at large because when this form of trust was
insulted trust at large was insulted with it. As it is the only form of trust
remaining trust at large was insulted via it (yes, trust is an endangered
species). Its uniqueness and its status of sole survivor necessarily turn it
into the champion of all trust. That is why even the Chinese understand !
The cause served by bin Laden, the denial of nihilism, is beyond him and beyond
his god, blasphemy. Such a trick of the mind! Some will say it is what brings
sorrow to this world. Who is to blame? The twists of history (that twist has a
name: USA, two centuries of manoeuvring, the American foreign policy is war,
says Chomsky, famous negationist and anti-Semite, trade enforcement war,
because Americans are consistent traders who do everything they can to ensure
trade triumphs and is respected) have resulted in Muslim Arabs attacking New
York. But what matters is not the fact that they are Muslims but that they are
believers. It is not as Muslims but as believers that they are the paladins of
trust, the enemies of nihilism. They really have achieved something. With their
particular faith, these people honour trust as the ultimate virtue and are
therefore the paladins of all those who secretly respect trust in a world of
screwism where trust, constantly, relentlessly, mercilessly chased, bombed
night and day by clusters of non-sense, must be buried deep down in the heart
(« it is crucial that normal human feelings are repressed ",
Noam Chomsky, authentic anti-Semitic negationist). That is why they do not
shout from the rooftops. But that is also why all hope is not lost. Trust
smoulders in the heart of every man providing that he is not a screwistic
hypocrite (real people, those who have not denied trust deep down in their
heart, and who still form a large majority). Its shiny flame soars again on
every occasion, at the first opportunity. These paladins are the only resort,
the bulwark of trust. The spirit consists in trust. Trust has alienated itself
into the dollar. It now resides in the dollar. By doing so it has become
general, global. The whole world trusts the dollar. By alienating itself, the
spirit has become global. Alienation is the price to pay for the generalisation
of the spirit because the emigration of trust into the dollar is also the
denial of trust, its desertion and, henceforth, the greatest mistrust prevails
amongst people (which President Bush totally ignored, no one had told him,
apparently, since he was so stunned). The emigration of trust into the dollar
is also the denial of trust for another reason : trust presupposes doubt.
In the absence of any possible doubt, no trust is possible, no faith can be
given. But nobody can doubt money, nobody can not trust money. All doubt
is impossible and money is therefore an absolute certainty. That is why the
world of money proclaims itself immutable and the only possible one, if not the
best, for now... The whole world could witness the magnificent power of
trust when it denies what denies it (what denies it while chanting canticles),
when it rejects its banishment. It was triggered by its denial (the dollar) and
armed by its denial (the dollar). The colossal power of its denial (the dollar)
ensured its power and its determination. The width of the gap separating from
real life (the dollar gap) exasperates real life, the life of the spirit. In
any case the spirit is at odds with the spirit. The spirit denies what denies
the spirit and which, however, is also the spirit, the spirit of a spiritless
world. Lastly, it has nothing to do with a fight of the poor against the rich,
it is a fight of the believers against the infidels, of those who honour trust
against those who have denied trust. It is a fine accomplishment. It is an act
of generosity. The high death toll (besides Americans have already tied in
Afghanistan : 3500 all. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.) does
not mean it is not an act of generosity. What else do other billionaires with
their billions and other living people with their life ? Like
Wittgenstein, bin Laden gets rid of his fortune. He unloads it onto your head.
At least, say thank you. It is a lesson learnt the hard way, but it is a lesson
and he is a good teacher. It is a holocaust in the literal meaning (according
to the etymology, wholly burnt, implying : do not eat the meat,
leave everything to the gods and nothing for men, in other words, a total
sacrifice). Did the smoke please Allah's nostrils? Destroying two insolent
towers of the World Nihilism Centre and, most ironically, to get a qualified
town planner to head the operation is an act of generosity for the future of
the world, if there is a future at all, however (I. S. n° 6,
page 7 : Représentation en relief de la fonction modulaire
elliptique !) It is generous because it is selfless.
One cannot be more of a billionaire than bin Laden. He has obviously no
financial interest in it. And it also an act of generosity if this world has no
future. Before I die I will have witnessed this slap of the Moor in the face of
the puritan, the WASP, the money-grubbers who never question their goodness or
their righteousness after two centuries of manoeuvring and money-grubbing
nihilism. Bloy would have enjoyed this. Never mind getting screwed. But getting
screwed by someone chanting canticles, no thank you. Borgia the Catholic did
not chant canticles while he committed his crimes. Thank you BL without an H..
You really have to be selfless to live like an anchorite whilst being a
billionaire, whilst the Sa'ūd live a life of luxury. In his desert the
saint turns down all the temptations presented by the demon. The hypocrites
with their crocodile tears who all declared themselves Americans in the wake of
9-11 now pretend, three months later, this global achievement the authors of
which are common individuals (do business yourself, right ?) never
happened, they pretend nothing remarkable happened (including those
antiglobalists who continue to go about their little business as if nothing
happened. They would just like to make money-grubbing nihilism liveable and
fair.) It is the omerta, they are all Corsicans. But the towers have not
grown again, nor have the dead risen since then. These hypocrites have resumed
their shady business which they had never suspended anyway. However those who
were delighted by this act will never forget. This slap in the face of enemies
of trust will light up their life until the day they die. Bin Laden is right,
it is the reign of hypocrisy. Engels already said it Engels le disait déjà : « this is the humanity of trade :
the glory of the free trade system is to hypocritically use morality to immoral
ends. » But the American Corsican Combinani, head of Le Monde, is also
right : hypocrites are all Americans. (President Bush is the head of the
world. Combinani the prostitute obsequiously licks his hand and even... both.)
Combinani and his newspaper come up as the spokesperson of hypocrites, of
the rotten France, of the puffed up (with complacency) France, of the France of
collaboration
— le Monde is still le Temps, only the
invader has changed. These people are conformists as meant by Moravia. They
will be pro Mussolini when Mussolini comes to power in France or elsewhere.
Today Le Pen is a resistant, Combinani works for the Waffen US,
globalist elite troops, he is a collaborator, always obsequious with the
occupier. Today the occupier is general Manchester —,
which will surprise no one. When Combinani has the nerve to write on the
first page of his paper on my behalf as well as on yours : « We
are all Americans »
— Waffen US, what did I tell you? And why not
all Laotians, you scum? This god which blesses America and to which many
Americans, including their president and warlord, keep referring over and over
between two profitable business deals or two wars seems to hold dear any human
life except, apparently, for the life of Laotian farmers and so many others. Bloody
puritans. If, out of the erstwhile Thirteen Colonies, ten provinces had been
Quaker (only one was, Pennsylvania) instead of puritan, the fate of the world
would have been changed, as well as Cleopatra's nose. The fanatical Arabs are
earnest and honest, their god does not hold dear the life of Americans or
theirs. Honesty begins at home. The paladin bin Laden avenges the true
innocents that are Laotian farmers —,
he actually only speaks on behalf of hypocrites. It is unquestionable,
Combinani and Merry Messier are Americans. I am neither American, nor
Wahhabi (muwahhid). Roy ne suy, sire de Coucy-Couça, suy. Et cella me suffy. Just in passing, the prostitute Combinani also reveals that the
so-called consumer (the real prostitute, actually) is supposed to spend his
life between the supermarket and television, between television and the
supermarket. So when do these prostitutes get to be on the game every day? When
a whore has made earned lots on the game, she buys herself a white mink, then,
when she is angry, she throws it on the floor and stamps on it. But she is on
the game in between.
So I was saying : the economy does not exist. The world is a system of trust,
based on trust, i.e. currently based on the dollar. In such a world there is no
room for a so-called economy, nor for a so-called material basis, the dollar is
not material at all and that is the only explanation for the act of the
nineteen believers. Trust is no myth. Reject incredulity: you'll be doing me a
favour. General conclusion: only faith (faith at large, not only the Wahhabi,
Salafist or even simply religious meaning of faith) can defeat a world already
based on faith, faith in the dollar, only faith can defeat money-grubbing. The
money-grubbers Hobbes, Locke and Hume have screwed Marx et Engels but September
11 gave the latter a second win. The dollar is very spiritual but does not give
any spirit to those who have none or to those who have some. Bush would be a
good mailman, he is as deaf as a post: « I'm amazed that there is such
misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate
us. I am, I am -- like most Americans, I just can't believe
it. Because I know how good we are. " (Such a joker, he meant the
goods we have! And he is right there. You have nothing to fear since it is
President Bush's personal auditor who says so in the tales of Andersen!) Some
people never doubt anything, especially not about themselves. At least they are
amazed, that's a start. On the contrary, I think the fanatical Arabs understand
very well what the country of good people is and who the good people are, i.e.
those pretending to be so. Really good people do not usually brag about it.
These Arabs hate nihilism, especially when it aspires to dominate the world
triumphantly. Just remark this : Bush is not amazed that, for once, the
resentment of commercial nihilism was able to express itself, he is amazed that
anyone should hate him at all. Had this resentment not been able to express
itself that poor man would still know nothing about it, after two centuries of
manoeuvring. He well and truly is a Buddenbrook. May God save us from good
people. God does not like America any more, he hates it and proves it. Where
are we going? God only knows.
Moral of the story : better bomb New York than fuck Mrs Jospin. Also, thanks to the
adventurer and billionaire Largo Winch bin Laden
— not the role model of religious people but of
worldwide offenders, there you go, freedom is criminal above all. Bin Laden is
the first, and so far the only one, global offender —
it has been five months since we last heard of negationist paedophile
nazis. That's a relief! Meanwhile the two sissies (Allons-y chochotte,
chochotte allons-y ! Erik Satie) are simpering and need to be
begged to run for president. Roller skaters, married queers, electoral
tomfoolery, Monkey Minc climbs onto the table, waves his four little hands and
fraternises with Bové, which is not surprising at all (the fat man with a
moustache did not waste any time), frivolity and boredom, this world is about to
disappear, nobody knows how but it is bound to happen. The gentlemen at Davos
need their devoted and volunteer antiglobalist friends. Those people can look
forward to many lucrative job opportunities, as was the case for their elders
in 1968. Opportunists with or without a moustache, you can stuff your other
possible world up your arse, i.e. the same world adjusted to last a few
more centuries. There will always be people who do not want any of it.
Henceforth, bin Laden will be the ultimate reference point. The world is
divided between people who still believe in something but generally do not have
a say and people who do not believe in anything anymore (nihilists, strictly
speaking) but who do all the talking. The latter have nothing to say but they
want it to be known by all. Besides, I have no reason to defend bin Laden.
I am indebted to bin Laden. Thanks
to him I have cared to look up the etymology of the word faith and thus
discovered the name of what I have dedicated my life to. What do you think, the
angel Gabriel (oh! Gaby) not only speaks to Muhammad. I used to be like
Beethoven, the spirit was talking to me but I did not understand what He told
me. Then a few phone calls on the bin Laden case drew my attention on the word
nihilism because the disgusting pompous and snivelling moron Glucksmann, that
sententious Whinging Wall (what a pity he was not, together with his offspring,
in the towers, where he belonged. It is such shameless to
have children in this world and then come whinging afterwards. One of the few
big bosses of those towers was saved by his daughter whom he was driving to
school at the time of the attacks.), only the school at rue d'Ulm can produce
the likes of him (the school of nerve as Professor Bouveresse would put it),
pours out conferences and statements on the nihilism of fanatical believers,
which is a contradiction in terms. This gross contradiction immediately led me
to realise: it is this world which is nihilistic, not the fanatical Arabs and
it is precisely why they strike it. Russian nihilists were fanatical but not
all fanatical people are nihilists. Similarly, some Russian nihilists were
assassins but not all assassins are nihilists, like a lieutenant colonel un certain lieutenant-colonel George
Washington assassin of Jumonville,
son-in-law of the marquis de Vaudreuil (the year before, in 1763, the English
commanded by Sir Jeffrey Amherst provided Ohio Indians with smallpox-infected
blankets, thus inaugurating biological warfare. Anglo-Saxons are charming
people. According to some fanatical Muslims, America is an occupied country and
still belongs to Indians.) Far from it, these fanatical Arabs, these inspired
believers are anti-nihilists, they are the annihilators of roller skaters and
papas. They are moved by faith. This massacre of
non-believers by fanatical believers is barbaric, criminal and cruel but it is
not nihilistic. It was perpetrated in the name of the highest value, in the
name of God and to serve God while nihilists celebrate the death of God
(according to Weber, Americans, taking after North European traders of the
sixteenth century, have put God in the attic to freely indulge in the joy of
trade, their god is a back shop god). Nietzsche applies to himself the term
« nihilist ». Nihilists kill for the sake of it whereas conversations
between Robert Fisk and bin Laden reveal that the latter declared America
impious because it occupies the holy lands of Islam (sacred, meaning forbidden
and inviolable) and that this massacre was therefore accomplished to serve and
glorify God. Al Qaeda members are deniers because they deny but they are no
nihilists. Deniers, like the Hegelian negative, denies a given object, e.g.
money-grubbing and its pretensions, Nihilists deny everything and every value.
As Nietzsche said it so well they regard their vulgar needs as cosmic and
metaphysical values. Nihilists combine cynicism and naivety, cynicism being the
disregard of every value. Cynics have many ideals, they go from one
disappointment to another, which lead them to disregard any value ; cynics
only recognise one value, themselves (that goes for La Rochefoucauld,
more disenchanted than cynical, theoretician of self-esteem, Talleyrand or
Sacha Guitry but also for any modern screwist, apart from the talent,
obviously. Screwists go from one disappointment to another but cannot even
acknowledge it. Cynics hurt themselves- like Stavrogin —, screwists — like
Peter Stepanovich- coddle themselves, well, they try to). In Dostoevsky the
possessed are the toy of the true cynic Stavrogin. Al Qaeda members have no
cynicism whatsoever, they are inspired and have naivety strictly speaking: they
are natives of a metaphorical desert where everything is simple and crude as in
the real desert, they are Bedouins. They live in the deserts of Afghanistan or
in the desert of New Jersey, populated by good people blessed by God, or in the
crowded deserts of London and Paris. They have stripped the millennial Islam of
all its subtleties to mythically revive the time when it was foreign and
pure combat. Only a faith as crude and ruthless as Wahhabism could match the
ruthlessness of Manchesterian nihilism (there is nothing more ruthless than an
Anglican money-grubbers who thinks free trade is Jesus Christ), and with great
panache, too. Bin Laden is no Stavrogin and the nineteen believers had sturdy
minds, nerves of steel, they have nothing in common with the sorry mediocre
people which nazi officials were, each of them was an extraordinary man capable
of acting individually and on his own, they were men of the desert and had
absolutely nothing to do with the colourless beings depicted by Dostoevsky, the
toys of a toy (Peter Stepanovich). These anchorites have no needs, which prevents
them from having vulgar ones. In order to act, al Qaeda members need a powerful
motivation. Therefore they are no cynics, they are no nihilists. In The Idiot
four young people storm into the home of Prince Myshkin (part two, end of
chapter seven and following chapters, spicy portrait of des sectateurs de la « Téléologie
moderne » (sectaries of modern
Téléology)), to arrogantly assert their fallacious rights (in fact they are
manipulated by a crook) whereas Mohammed Atta was known for his urbanity (which
is the least you can expect from a town planner). American leftists argue
(which would be completely unthinkable in France, a country where the voice of
the master and the collaboration reign, not back in 1940 but today, it does not
apply to everybody but to all who speak in the box) about America's
responsibility and guilt in this attack but, to my knowledge, they never argue
about its meaning. For once, America is not faced with a political cause, as in
Vietnam for instance, but with religion, with the wrath of God, which is
amazing, with a definition of what is human and what is not, with a definition
other than its own, for a change
— only money-grubbing is human, it is blessed by God,
of course, and coupled with obsessional references to values, that are, in
fact, violated every ungodly day. To top it all, money-grubbing has
pretensions. It cannot sell its stuff without constantly referring to God and
the highest values. When Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are the leaders of a country
as powerful as the United States, it is ridiculous but it is also frightening.
That said, Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are also ubiquitous in France, not only
in the government but also in the press, on the radio, on television, in trade
unions, in politics and so on, but here it is only ridiculous. After all,
Homais, Bouvard and Pécuchet are French specialities so we have large servings
of them. And we also have Bové ! But we do not have the megatons. —
The puritan pious money-grubbers have met someone more pious than them!
There is always someone more pious than you. Malraux was an exact prophet. In
the very first year of this century, the speech conveyed by bin Laden's youths
states that if this century is to take place it will have to be spiritual and
that only the spirit can ensure the security of Americans, and not only of
Americans, which has nothing to do with Roquefort. Bin Laden is neither a
statesman, nor a politician, but a believer with a sincere devotion and
purified mysticism. After the failure of political Islamism he moves on and
leaves politics behind. It is precisely this absence of political references,
this stress on the sharia and the sharia only which pleased the CIA so much.
Today we are more knowledgeable of bin Laden's religious project, it has become
global. The reason for this attack is not a land issue, not a money-grubbing
issue, it is sacrilege, and the fanatical Arabs match this sacrilege
with sacrilege (assassination too is sacrilege). There is always someone
more sacrilegious than you. The leftist Hitchens asks the leftist Chomsky if
America has ever done anything as horrible as this attack. Yes, what it has
done is sacrilege, and it obviously does not know about it (while in My Lai and
in so many other places, it did). Even Chomsky does not seem to know about it.
America, that is, its leaders, thought they were dealing with a banal trade
enforcement war, what they generally call defence of the free world. But they
are dealing with a religion war. America is faced with religion and faith and
not with nihilism because it embodies nihilism, the poverty of life as
denounced by Nietzsche, life reduced to money-grubbing. Despite its phenomenal
power or perhaps because of its power, America is the smallest country in the
world, a pinheaded country, the country of good people blessed by God and of
the Nobel Prizes in Physics (having said that, America does not have the
monopoly of poverty of life, it is only the first one in this matter, as
everywhere else; it is the same story in France, for the worse in some
instances, but with Fields Medals). It is as if America swept all its
intelligence aside on the pretext that it is too tiring. It is the terrible
desert devoid of any trust in the United States and in the rest of the world
which triggers and sparks off the revival of the terrible trust in the deserts
of Arabia. Besides I would like to dwell on the points on which I disagree with
American leftists in this matter. They draw up a list of all the atrocities
perpetrated by their country in the past century in the name of its foreign
policy. I do not hesitate to take up this litany myself when I need to, as you
can see here; but I think the greatest harm America does is what it does to
itself, the way it inflicts harm on its own so-called citizens (I can say the
same about France of course, but no one is interested in this small country
anymore, it is not a target worthy of the Arabs. The world is not becoming
French, it is becoming American including France because among all money-grubbers,
the United States is the first.) In my opinion this is the cause of the
resentment of the fanatical Arabs : they do not want to be next to become
zombies. They would rather die. If that is what it is like to be American, it
will be over my dead body, and, as they have shown, it is no figure of speech.
If Americans were at home a great example of humanity, as their president seems
to believe, while they are simply money-grubbers, « rational
maximisers » and prostitutes for the rest of them, Arabs would not bomb
them, they would be keen to become Americans (for now starving people dream of
becoming Americans, but it is not the spirit, the high morality, the great
civilisation of Americans they envy but their obesity. Un Maigre chez les gras, Breughel, il me semble, et
l'inverse, Un Gras chez les maigres, en Arabie.) Besides
they could also bomb the French or the English or even... the Chinese for the
same reason. But the United States is the head of world infidelity, i.e. of the
world of money-grubbing, as bin Laden obligingly points out. Anyway these two
viewpoints are connected as a country oppressing other countries cannot be a
free country and if America was this great model of humanity praised by
president Bush there could be no litany of its atrocities. No smoke without
fire, Sitting Bull would say. The United States is an occupied country like any
other one, occupied by money-grubbers and money-grubbing like most of the other
countries. We all know that to money-grubbers money-grubbing is all that
matters, Flaubert depicted it for us, and if you do not like money-grubbing you
are either insane or criminal. Arabs disagree and they prove it. Roy is wrong,
bin Laden has not failed.
— besides who can claim to know the goals pursued by
bin Laden, which would be necessary to state he has failed to reach his goals?
For my part, I confine myself to his statements and the meaning his operation
takes, regardless of his goals, which are unknown. After the battle the goals
are irrelevant, only the result counts : faith has bombed New York, faith
has bombed Sodom, no matter what other goals bin Laden may have pursued. The
raison d'être is not in the beginning, it is not in the goal either, the
raison d'être is a result. Heil Hegel ! (let us sum up Hegel in one
sentence : what exists is not necessary, it becomes so. Is it simple
enough?) I do not want to know why it happened I only care about the meaning of
what happened. The meaning is a result. —
His success is philosophical, it
deals with the meaning of the world and the meaning of life, which are no
longer debated anywhere in the world today since money-grubbing has triumphed
everywhere and... for ever according to its professional sycophants. So far
religions were the only avenues found by people to theoretically deal
with collective beings, which are necessarily transcendent, that is to say to
theoretically deal with themselves (we should note here that one of the
predicates of divinity has escaped Feuerbach's sagacity: transcendence. Even
this predicate is human since collective beings, characterising humanity and
humanity only, are transcendent and... invisible, invisibility is another human
predicate not considered by Feuerbach. All we can do is remark their effects.
Making God a transcendent being is therefore an effect of clairvoyance, of
poetry but not of obscurantism, as some little Jules-Ferry may claim, some
people who only know their money-grubbing home in this world.) These Arabs are
the only ones today who theoretically deal with this question, a
question on which Marx completely failed. I am absolutely certain that this
philosophical success has never been considered by bin Laden who is not the
doctor but the philosopher in spite of himself. Where money-grubbing
triumphs, only the tireless chatterboxes Homais, Bouvard, Pécuchet and Adler
can have a say and climb onto the table. You hear them all day, continuously
gibbering on the wireless set. Perhaps BL without an H did not achieve what he
intended but his proclaim « money-grubbing is not all that matters and
I prove it » remains. It is not only relevant to Arabs or Muslims, at
least I hope so. But if bin Laden and the nineteen believers do not say it, who
has said it, who will say it? Roselyne Bachelot (the arsehole Ruquier has also
apologised, same bunch of scum) ? What does the philosopher in spite of
himself tell us? « Life is just a second dream », in other
words dreams take precedence over life. The money-grubber says : « you
need life to dream » (what does a money-grubber know about dreams and
thus about life?), bin Laden replies « Life does not matter as long as
we have dreams » and proves it. Today al Qaeda members are the only
ones capable of theoretically denying money-grubbing in an audible way
— theoretically because it is only a demonstration.
Bin Laden did not intend to invade or destroy America. When Shiite extremists
blow up Marines' barracks in Lebanon, Americans withdraw immediately. They also
withdraw from Somalia straight after the first bloodshed. But here they could
not decently withdraw from the United States, the American army could not
decently evacuate the United States after the first warning, where would they
go anyway ? In Palestine, with Jerusalem as a capital? But Palestine is a
country that is already « overcrowded », there are still some Indians
alive over there — ;
they are not, I hope, the only ones who deny money-grubbing, but they
are the only ones who could make themselves heard. In this world of separation
and chattering silence, it is all about making yourself heard, if not
understood (the sixty good people have perfectly understood, better than
anyone else, what the fanatical Arabs were attacking), and these Arabs have
succeeded in it whilst remaining very economical : not only have they made
themselves heard, but they were heard by the whole world. Attacking New York is
attacking the world. So, in order to attack the world, they only needed to
attack New York. And now they have. It is a glimmer of hope to see that these
men can make themselves heard in spite of the systematic organisation of
silence — finally, non-money-grubbers,
non-rebellious-money-grubbers,
non-professional-or-volunteering-sycophants-of-money-grubbing can make
themselves heard —, that deserves a glass of champagne; but the fact
that it took such men resorting to such means to achieve this tells a lot about
the stage of mutism the world is at. Desperate ills demand desperate measures,
don't they? Who is to blame, I ask you again? Perhaps we should, for a start,
shoot down all the professionals of mutism who speak in the box at high speed,
without ever catching their breath because they are so eager to impose on us
their « well-informed ignorance » (Davies and Sardar), because they
have so many non-things to say
— when Houellebecq is talking in the box that is a
completely different story. He finds the rights words. He is so economical in
his speech! What did he say in his defence in court on the lawsuit brought
against him by Muslim associations? He knows nothing about monotheism, he often
changes his mind; but he uses semicolons better than anyone else. The judge can
only bow to such an argument — ;
then you would not have to speak so loud anymore when you have something
to say! Those professionals of mutism who say they are all Americans share the
responsibility for the attacks on New York because they control more than a
fair share of the organisation of mutism. The fanatical Arabs have so perfectly
assimilated the American practice of bombogram, bombing as a press release (Why
do people hate America, Davies and Sardar), that they improve it by turning
it into a philosophical manifesto. There is always someone with better bombograms
than yours. (even the Chinese can read it). The joke is over, philosophy has
become serious again. The discussion on God's existence, i.e. on the meaning of
the world, has resumed, in a slightly brutally indeed. The pupils surpass the
masters. They proclaim : no, money-grubbing is not the ultimate stage of
the world, no, the acknowledgement has not taken place despite Mr Fukuyama's
pink outfit, yes, the discussion is continuing, yes, we must question
everything that is questionable. It is also an aesthetic success (Even
Meddeb, the nice, well-integrated Arab, agrees) an artistic manifesto as
Stockhausen rightly pointed out. Flaubert relates atrocities in a perfectly
accurate style, the fanatical Arabs carry out atrocities in a perfectly
accurate style. Flaubert and these Arabs deal with the same hopeless world. The
beauty lies in the style, not in the object narrated or the crime committed.
— I suppose André Breton would have appreciated the
masterpiece of black humour by the crew members who were to die and who, the
night before the event, got drunk in a bar in Jersey City, being very loud,
making a row, refusing to pay for their drinks then exclaiming : « we
don't care, we've got loads of money, we're American Airlines pilots." —
This amazing uninstallation, this great performance,
closes the book on all the arty types who have been swarming (and talking on
and on and on on the radio) over the corpse of dada, a corpse that reeks even
more than those at Ground Zero. Those are towers the scum Christo will not be
able to wrap. Bin Laden will leave a greater mark in New York and the whole
world than Duchamp ever did. He proves it was still possible to take the art of
rottenness and rotten people even further than rotten people themselves thought
was possible. This time, as it says on the poster, the artist commits suicide
on stage. The audience gets more than it bargained for. What is it complaining
about?
— The mayor of Youpiville (Yuppytown), a cheeky
nihilist (he regards his vulgar needs as cosmic and metaphysical issues and,
above all, he claims to make us benefit from them), great guru of
sinister events, i.e. left-wing events, is always seeking « the real
pleasure », which can be a risky business. The cheeky fellow has had the
retribution for his cheekiness: boredom, frivolity and disturbance of the peace
at night... let petty thieves lie. The weapon of criticism cannot replace the
criticisms meted out by weapons, can they? —
Today Nihilists and their pride go roller skating while modest fanatics
learn to pilot planes. Nihilism : denial of every value,
doctrine rejecting the existence of any absolute, often in the belief that
moral values have no foundation and that life is meaningless. Believing
that life is meaningless! But it is not simply a doctrine, this world not only
believes life is meaningless but also uses moral values to reach its immoral
goals as Engels already emphasised. This commercial world is nihilism come
true, nihilism turned into a world, the generalisation of commercial nihilism,
i.e. the generalisation of the poverty of life, extended to the whole world. And
a fanatical believer is everything but a nihilist. On the contrary, he
constantly seeks to annihilate nihilism, to annihilate what believes life is
meaningless, to annihilate what uses moral values to immoral ends, what invokes
the name of God, democracy and freedom to grub some money. The fanatical Arabs
counter this permanent crime against the spirit by indiscriminately
assassinating a mass of impious free prostitutes in the name of their vengeful
and vindictive God. They do not want to become Americans, they do not want to
go roller skating, they do not want to go to Paris plage (Youpi plage,
in fact. There are no innocents in Youpi plage. Youpiville is the
head of world roller skating and protesting queerness), or only by plane, they
do not want to benefit from the civilisation of the complacent bourgeois Revel.
They are such party poopers! The real civil religion in the United States is
trade, nothing but trade which should not be confused with democracy; trade is
the hypocritical negation of it and fortunately this is becoming increasingly
conspicuous. Bourgeois values, not the ones they invoke, their actual values
are well-known : making money and cholesterol (double benefit for Homais
the apothecary), everything else is sheer hypocrisy and propaganda. Same old
Buddenbrooks.
Summary, again :
amidst all this praise, amidst all this self-congratulation, amidst all this
justification, amidst all these tall stories, amidst all this tomfoolery,
amidst all these pats on the back, amidst all these Pompidou des sous,
amidst all this self-satisfaction, amidst all these certainties, amidst all
this gibberish, amidst so many TV statements, amidst so much charity business,
amidst so much antiglobalist business, amidst all this apologetic critical
propaganda, it happened last summer, this world, not only America was declared
evil, with such means and in such a manner that no one could even pretend to
ignore it. With bin Laden and Omar on the run the world will return to its
peaceful obscurantism. The citizen cattle will be able to graze peacefully
again. Bush is the embodiment of obscurantism, he is the supreme guardian and
the protector of obscurantism and even obscurity (do you grasp the nuance?) and
the leftists at Porto Alegre are about to eat transgenic grains out of his hand
(from pseudo-rebellion to real collaboration, their show only lasted one
summer. Thank you again, BL without an H, things are getting clearer. People
finally take sides. Courrier international, January 12 2002 :
on a Swedish radio, Susan George apologises
— as is customary in this clique. And now the fat
moron with a moustache Bové has followed suit and also apologised for making
pro-Palestinian remarks —
and thanks G. Bush for his forceful course of action in Afghanistan.
Those rebellious money-grubbers do not waste any time, do they?) According to
Olivier Roy, bin Laden made the mistake of committing an unacceptable act, even
to Muslims (le Monde September 14 2001). We are overwhelmed by
acceptable acts. It is precisely unacceptable acts that count. Otherwise you
are just a voice crying in the wilderness. Some people only understand force,
especially those who are used to systematically resorting to it, like the
United States have been in the past two centuries. Myths teach us that the
founding acts were acts so unacceptable that they are still remembered today.
You kill your father, you screw your mother, you put out your eyes and so on
and so forth. The age of heroes has returned. Down with money-grubbing! The
force of this act and the success of bin Laden lie in its unacceptability in a
world of generalised acceptance. Only an unquestionably evil act can condemn an
evil world because it is this evil world which has produced it, not only in
general, as described earlier here, but also in particular : these
fanatical and bold men, enduring, real Bedouins, were recruited, financed,
trained and armed for their fanaticism and determination by the cynical and
clear-sighted CIA which did there what it was used to doing all over the world.
That was one time too many. Ce fut une fois de
trop(10). Back to sender, unknown
address. Good old Lenin, they did not supply the rope but the dynamite! The
wise guys at the CIA could not think for a second that those savages from the
desert, too busy buggering their dromedaries, were blessed with free will, a
strategic mind and, even better, a certain unpredictability which is usually
called freedom or creation, they could not think that, instead of the usual
corrupt proconsuls, they were honest men as Cicero was in his province. It is
the exception that proves the rule. Just to make things worse, they all have
university degrees and a fervent ideal. First these men declared the Russian world
evil and went on to declare the Anglo-Saxon world evil. Ungrateful beggars. Who
else could do it with such force today? Among so many questionable,
hypocritically and deceitfully evil acts which array themselves in the rags of
morality, one unquestionably evil, open act finally stands out. This obnoxious
world of acceptance and real happiness can only be denounced by an unacceptable
act. Only an act of this nature could reveal the plague of this world.
Only faith, whatever it may be, can reveal nihilism. Only faith is suited to
this purpose. If it is a bitter pill to swallow, who is to blame?
Conclusion. On the night of September 11, I thought : the world is
under attack and not America is under attack. That is why I drank
champagne on the night of September 11. I already knew as much on
September 11. However it has not been easy to say it, i.e. to know it
effectively. There is many a slip twixt cup and lip. There is many a slip twixt
feeling and idea. That is why I say : although all that is said is not an
idea (far from it, alas) only what can be said is an idea ; and although
all that is said is not knowledge only what can be said is knowledge.
Che vuoi ? the frightening camel in The
devil in love (Cazotte, 1772) asks. Rise quickly, craved storms!
Salam aleikum.
J.-P. Voyer
perso.club-internet.fr/leuven
Notes
_________________________________________
1. Le bonjour du Dr Mossadegh
• www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953cp.html
• www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
2. Marx. Discours sur le libre échange
• perso.club-internet.fr/leuven/disco01.htm
• sep.free.fr/marx/txt/1848libreechange.htm
3. Arendt. Signification de la philosophie de Hobbes
• perso.wanadoo.fr/denis.collin/de_hobbes.htm
4. Luxembourg. Cours d'économie politique
• www.marxists.org/archive/noneng/francais/luxembur/intro_ecopo/intro_ecopo_11.htm
5. Les soixante gens bons. Lettre d'Amérique
• www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--262755-,00.html
Réponse de cent vingt-huit intellectuels américains
• www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3232--270076-,00.html
6. Département d'Etat US
• usinfo.state.gov/francais/terrornet/03.htm
7. Arno. Le premier amendement de la constitution américaine
• www.uzine.net/article48.html
8. Fouchereau. Les sectes, cheval de Troie des Etats-Unis en Europe
• www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/05/FOUCHEREAU/15215.html
9. Emeriau, Motoyasu. Qu'est-ce que l'acier damas ?
• acier.damas.free.fr/f_damas/quest.htm
10. Olivier Roy. Une fois de trop
• www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1998/10/ROY/11134
11. Jacques Julliard. Merci Ben Laden
• www.nouvelobs.com\evenement\evt9.html